Grab our RSS Feed

AND

Department of Energy Proposes Slashing Hydrogen Fuel Cell Budget

May 10th, 2009 | Posted in: Hydrogen

A few years ago hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were considered to be the next phase of automotive propulsion, to replace petroleum. In 2003 then President Bush even said “the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.”

A lot has changed since then. The Volt concept and countless other electric car programs have been introduced, and Obama has pledged to get 1 million plug-in cars on the road by 201.

Within months of first introducing the Volt concept a hydrogen fuel cell range-extender version was displayed, never to be heard from again.

Earlier this week in the setting of the Obama administration’s weeding of the federal budget, it was proposed the funding for hydrogen fuel cell spending be cut by 59% to a total of $68 million.

“We asked ourselves, ‘Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will covert to a hydrogen car economy?’” said Energy Secretary Stephen Chu. “The answer, we felt, was ‘no.’”

Not surprisingly the National Hydrogen Association and the U.S. Fuel Cell Coalition issued a statement of disapproval. Among other things they said:

The cuts proposed in the DOE hydrogen and fuel cell program threaten to disrupt commercialization of a family of technologies that are showing exceptional promise and beginning to gain market traction.

GM for its part has done considerable work on fuel cells and currently has a fleet of 100 Fuel Cell Equinoxes on the roads that have collectively logged well over half a million miles. Their most recent viability plan still indicates long term expectations for fuel cell vehicles.

I asked Nick Zielinksi who is GMs director of advanced technology engineering whether he believes GM is shifting away from hydrogen fuel cell development. “I don’t think were shifting, but there is some new balancing of priorities,” he said. “We still think there is a place for fuel cell vehilce in the future and were continuing to work on them.”

Source (Edmunds) and (NY Times)

Posted by: Lyle

136 Responses to “Department of Energy Proposes Slashing Hydrogen Fuel Cell Budget”

Herm Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 7:57 am

1st!

are we going to hear from the nutcases that Obama killed the hydrogen car?

Natural gas is almost as bad, but at least we can get it from out of the ground, essentially for free..

(Quote)
BRAD G Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 7:59 am

HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY!!! DON’T FORGET TO CALL MOM TODAY!!!

(Quote)
Rick Covert Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:05 am

Good riddence! It was a greenwashing attempt that failed anyway. The sad part is that it replaced a program that did work called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) which created 80 mpg hybrid elecric vehicles and would have prevented the disaster that befell Detroit. The Detroit three had argued that the PNGV program would cost the companies money and cost them thousands of jobs. Ironically Toyota and Honda, excluded from the program, built the Prius and the Insight and brought them to market. Now they are in a far better financial state than GM and Chrysler who have lost money and jobs and Toyota is the number one car manufacturer. PNGV cost the government $1 billion dollars but looks cheap in retrospect.

(Quote)
Rick Covert Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:06 am

Let’s hope that GM has learned its lesson and can redeam itselft with the Volt.

(Quote)
BRAD G Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:07 am

Hydrogen… Oh yeah, it will be ready in 20-30 years… Until then we just need to be happy and drive our ICE cars and trucks and buy gas from Big Oil…

One thing never mentioned is where battery technology will be in 20-30 years… I saw where some MIT’er was working on a virus battery that recharges itself…

Want to be free from imported oil NOW…
1) Produce or convert all trucks to CNG (semi’s and pickups)
2) Produce pure electric cars and electric cars with range extenders

(Quote)
MarkinWI Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:10 am

Hydrogen – no distribution system v. electricity, nuf said.

(Quote)
BRAD G Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:11 am

Anybody know about the Power4Home books being advertised above?

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:38 am

It looks like DOE is backing away from the hydrogen economy.

Typical Govt. stupidity. And the fuel cells are just the tip of the iceberg. The Govt. has been dumping money into the development and of the next generation nuclear plant (NGNP). This thing is supposed to be being built out in Idaho but it is horribly behind schedule because it will require a ton of research. This high temperature gas reactor design was supposed to make cheap hydrogen for our new hydrogen economy.

It looks like this reactor boondoggle will be killed too in a few years. Had the govt just sponsored the development of an advanced light water reactor (a technology we already can build safely), we might actually have more power on the grid right now.

These fools in congress stick long term planning into bills they do give them selves time to read before voting on them. In the end, we piss away money and still do not have a coherent energy plan.

(Quote)
nuclearboy Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:42 am

Currently GM has a fleet of hydrogen vehicles driving around. As the Govt. pulls back on support for Hydrogen, GM should let this program die because it can only live with Govt. support.

I have seen interviews. People love their fuel cell Chevy Equinoxes. When GM pulls them back, are these people going to try to sue to keep them?

I can see it now. GM killed the fuel cell car.

(Quote)
Shawn Marshall Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:42 am

Wonder where the 68 million goes? Basic research? How is it doled out? What are they trying to do? The biggest problem at present is the cost of a fuel cel;, until that is solved there is no need to worry about a generation and/or distribution system. This is a small amount of R&D money made smaller.

I’ll have some respect for Chu when he finally realizes he needs to get behind nuclear, clear impediments to construction, encourage plants near loads, revitalize the industry’s engineering and construction base in this country.

Let’s get a real energy policy.

(Quote)
Bill Marsh Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:45 am

The meta rule I have developed after years of government service is that government should NEVER pick technologies and push them. They invariably make the wrong choice and spend untold billions trying to force people to accept them. This behavior applies across the board, but especially in IT. Anybody remember ADA?

(Quote)
ClarksonCote Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:45 am

Hydrogren is pointless… It takes 4 times as much energy to store electricity in the form of hydrogen than in a battery. The only ‘benefit’ of hydrogen is fast refill times, but that would require such an infrastructure overhaul that it just doesn’t seem practical.

And if faster charging becomes viable for batteries, I really don’t see any useful reason to continue looking at hydrogen.

Just my $0.02

(Quote)
Biodieseljeep Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:48 am

Chu is the first DOE head who is a scientist of merit. Naturally, when you look at the facts, hydrogen is a pipe dream at this time. Batteries are much more efficient now at energy storage, and the electrical infrastructure is there. Batteries for short-range electric usage (ie cars, not trucks) are the smartest choice for right now, and the smart guy Chu is doing the right thing.

Certainly time to stop wasting gov and industry money and focus on real options.

(Quote)
detfan Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:54 am

I’ve been a fan of GM’s full spectrum of fuel alternatives research. Flex Fuel will prove to gain in popularity as cellulosic ethanol producers commercialize in the next 12-18 months. Hydrogen fuel cell is an excellent technology that just needs an infratructure. Just as e85 recently reached 2,000 stations nationwide, hydrogen could slowly build their infrasructure to eventually provide nationwide driving.

But still, the best bet is lithium-ion batteries, and when nanolithium arrives with 10X the charging capability, then we will have a 400 mile range on electric for the Volt. This is possible within the next couple of years, according to Stanford University, who discovered how to do it. If they can design them to allow for a “quick charge”, then Volt’s can have a national range without a secondary energy source(gas, flex-fuel, hydrogen).

(Quote)
hayley Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:57 am

@ BRAD G Says:
HAPPY MOTHER’S DAY!!! DON’T FORGET TO CALL MOM TODAY!!!

Thanks, I almost forgot =)

Yea, I think this is a good thing considering the current state of affairs, I’ve heard the Honda Clarity FCX costs $1,000,000 (million) per car to build right now. That is so very far from being commercially viable… compared to a $40,000 Volt or even a $80,000 Converj. Naturally we should focus on funding the one that is likely to make it to market years, maybe even decades before the other.

(Quote)
statik Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:14 am

/wicked awesome

…finally a h******* thread I can get behind.

(Quote)
statik Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:20 am

Side note for anyone interested in such things:

Fritz is doing another ‘fireside chat’ about the restructuing, and will also give a update on how his Mother’s Day brunch went with his mom. (I bet he tries to give her a couple old unsold Azteks…again)
————–

Detroit , Mich. (NYSE: GM) – General Motors President and CEO Fritz Henderson will host his second media conference call on Monday, May 11, on GM’s restructuring activities.

The call will begin at approximately 9:30 a.m. EDT. Because we anticipate a high volume of calls, we recommend you dial in 10 minutes before the start time.

Henderson will take questions from the media and the call will last approximately 30 minutes.

http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewmonthlyreleasedetail.do?domain=3&docid=54190

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:26 am

#5, Brad G,

Your prescription for getting off foreign oil is correct, but that wouldn’t get us off foreign natural gas.

YES, OBAMA KILLED THE AMERICAN FUEL CELL VEHICLE. NOW ASIA AND EUROPE WILL LEAPFROG OUR REEV’S.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:28 am

From my viewpoint, this whole situation all boils down to how serious you want to get about CO2 reductions.

Many people can use the Volt for their daily driving, with only minimal use of liquid fuel (gas or E85). This and BEV’s can be great for this portion of the transportation sector (note, the grid still needs to reduce its CO2 emissions).

However, for long range transport, i.e. large trucks, a plug-in solution is probably not on the immediate horizon. Therefore, if CO2 MUST be eradicated, then hydrogen from non CO2 emitting sources (renewable, nuclear, or natural gas and coal with CCS, carbon capture and storage) will be needed.

So if everyone is happy with a moderate reduction in CO2 emissions, fuel cells will not become mainstream. However, if large reductions of CO2 are mandated (I believe Markey-Waxman calls for an 80% reduction by 2050), then we may see fuel cells where plug-ins can’t be feasible.

(Quote)
Jason The Saj Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:30 am

And yet the Democrats get credit as being the environmental party. Bovine Fecal Matter!!!!

Bush funds a long term project for the future, thinking 10, 20, 30 yrs ahead. Now a Democrat administration is going to cut the program, in typical political fashion, because the benefits are more than 4-8 yrs in the future.

This is the problem with American politics, the parties in control can’t think beyond 4 yrs (next election cycle). So when we should be planning long-range for the future, we condemn ourselves to short range thinking.

And of course the Democrat party can do no wrong. Never be anti-environment. Just like the fact that Republicans never do anything for the environment. Like Bush investing in long-term for the future of our children. Or the fact that President Bush was the first President to make a national park of America’s oceans. Setting aside vast regions of America’s coral reefs. And creating an national park in the sea that is larger than the rest of our parks combined. But few people even know that, because the media buried.

Everyone lauds Al Gore who pretends to be about the environment. But is really just about profiteering. I thought it was so funny when that reporter compared the homes of Bush and Gore. Bush had an extremely environmentally friendly home with passive solar, water reclamation and more. Gore had a monstrosity that was almost equivalent to a small development in and of itself. Even after updating, Gore’s home is still a monstrous carbon footprint.

But never fail, even with all this. People will equate the environment with Democrats because the media will tell them to do so.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:35 am

#12, clarksoncote,

Rapid refill charging infrastructure does not exist either, so some new infrastructure MUST be built, unless we turn to some domestic source of oil or biofuel. More than likely, we will do no infrastructure building and individuals will have a fast charge unit at home, which draws current slowly from the grid, but dumps it quickly to the vehicle.

(Quote)
ERP Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:36 am

I think ultimately it WOULD be a better idea to have the country filled with hydropgen fill stations instead of gas stations – as well as needing to massively upgrade the electical power grid to accomidate all the proposed plug ins. The real long term question from an environmental point of view is which is less polluting to PRODUCE, electricity for the grid and the plug ins, or hydrogen from the atmosphere?

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:42 am

#14, detfan,

You ignore the cost of these new batteries, as well as the cost and time required for a rapid recharge infrastructure.

There is no free lunch.

(Quote)
kent beuchert Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:44 am

“The hydrogen economy” was a good example of how the public can be convinced by scientists of what the future holds. It was to the 1980’s what “global warming” will be to this generation, but without the scare factor and crappy science. It was, instead, an example of crappy understanding of what the technology required – originally the idea was that hydrogen would be piped everywhere, and into every home, sort of like the way cable has moved in. Problem was,
hydrogen couldn’t be produced cheaply via electrolysis and materials (costeffective materials) could not be found to move the stuff around. And fuel cells costs a whole lot to build. Honda and GM were the leaders in trying to develop both the cells and the cars.
They made considerable progress in reducing costs of the cells,
and building the car wasn’t all that hard. I’d guess that a fuel cell car today costs less than a battery-only electric. The only difference is the source of electricity and its required paraphrenalia. If you build a fuel cell car, you are building a car just as electric as one powered by batteries. So why aren’t they calling today’s electric cars “battery cars”? Hey, everyone knows we aren’t logical around here. Just lok at Obama’s brainless dream of a million electric cars – by the time they arrive, there will be another million gas powered cars but , regardless, a million cars doesn’t acomplish anything of significance,
emissions or gas avoidance. Its effect couldn’t even be measured -
its way too small. At that rate of adoption, the percentage of EVs after 10000 years would still be less than 1 percent. We all know Obama can’t tell the truth; we now know he can’t think straight either.

Unfortunately, global warming scares are going to cost a fortune.
Hydrogen research, as one can see from the rather paltry sums of money involved, cost us practically nothing.

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:02 am

Well, I’m glad that they’re cutting something. Hydrogen was a politically motivated distraction. We have better uses for the R&D money.

(Quote)
Jason M. Hendler Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:08 am

The first step towards the future will be REEV’s that look like conventional vehicles – Volt, Karma, and others which were recently announced.

After several years of improvements on cost and performance, these vehicles will finally achieve significant sales numbers.

It now seems that it will be decades before we convert our infrastructure, so biofuels and domestic oil are our only near term options.

(Quote)
Keith Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:21 am

Remember Ballard , yea , the fuel cell people who year after year kept saying next year , in two years , next year , we plan , we expect over and over for years and all they did was make some cells at a cost of over a million dollars each . Yea right fuel cells can be made to work (in space) but they sure as hell dont belong in transportation on earth .
They (Ballard) burned up millions on the fool cells promotions , buying and selling shares . It was nothing but a BLACK BOX for buying shares low and selling shares high after an announcement .
Stop wasting money on these things , live in the real world and do research on something that at least has some possibility of being useful .

(Quote)
Exp_EngTech Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:30 am

“Hydrogren is pointless…”

AMEN….. pointless for so many, many reasons.

The education of the average auto consumer slowly grinds on. A growing portion see wisdom in getting off the petroleum merry-go-round.

We can’t afford the waste of time & money in pursuing a “Hydrogen Utopia” that *MIGHT* be several decades away at best.

Currently available Lithium ion technology will soon enable some of us that have the financial resources to purchase a small but practical BEV. It will be used for that daily under 40 mile work commute trip and local shopping. When it appears in the US, the Mitsubishi i-MiEV will have some buyers. I intend to be one.

In a few years, as Lithium ion cell production begins to ramp up and costs start to come down, I hope a new GM or Ford sees fit to produce a Voltec / E-REV powered Minivan / Van. It should have removable passenger seating for 9 – 12 and an ICE genset that can run anything up to E100.

(Quote)
User Name Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:30 am

Fuel Cells were a distraction to prevent implementation of Serial Plug-In Hybrids & pure Battery Electric Vehicles BEV’s

Its a bummer because Fuel Cells really work, I mean they took us to the Moon did’nt they?

A technology, mis-applied, for the sole purpose of maintaining the antiquated internal combustion engine.

Money better spent on more promising technologies that could have been brought to market sooner.

(Quote)
Bearclaw Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:41 am

It’s too bad. Now we won’t be able to use those vast reserves of Hydrogen we have and won’t be allowed to wait 15+ minutes at the station while we fill up our hydrogen tanks.

Does someone have that list of the 10 or so miracles that have to happen in order for hydrogen to work as a transportation fuel?

…a family of technologies that are showing exceptional promise and beginning to gain market traction.

what on earth are they talking about with market traction? Someone please give us an example.

(Quote)
Brian Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 11:27 am

I agree this is a good move. Now if they can just kill all the equally ridiculous spending on nuclear power programs we would be all set.

(Quote)
omnimoeish Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 11:31 am

The fact is that Obama can’t afford projects that MIGHT be 20-30 years away (I personally don’t think we’ll ever see it no matter what the advances because electricity is almost free to transport while hydrogen costs more to transport than it’s worth, much harder than gas or oil because it has to stay pressurized and it’s corrosive, pipes don’t work). E-flex vehicles are basically FCVs running gas. They are 99% the same hardware. There will probably be cars in a few years that run hydrogen, gas, or ethanol (hopefully cellulosic) in the same car. They are still spending $68 million every 365 days on this technology. That’s $68 million that could be putting students through college, or subsidizing plug in vehicle batteries like the Volt.

(Quote)
ClarksonCote Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 11:32 am

#21 Jason M. Hendler,

“Rapid refill charging infrastructure does not exist either”

I agree that rapid charging stations are currently not available, but the ‘infrastructure’ is everywhere. All they would need to do is start adding charging stations, the electricity is already there.

Hydrogen, on the other hand, is an extremely difficult commodity to transport. If it’s liquified, it has to be kept extremely cold. Keeping it liquified alone takes 40% of the energy content that it holds.

On the other hand, you could try to transport it as a gas instead of a liquid, but in that case, hydrogen by volume holds only 3 MJ of energy per liter compared with 32 MJ/L for gasoline.

(Source: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10922&page=37 Note that this is actually a pro-hydrogen source acknowledging distribution difficulties.)

When you look at how much more energy it takes to have hydrogen store that energy compared with a battery, it just doesn’t make sense to me.

For batteries, a charging infrastructure becomes even less important as ranges increase, at least for personal vehicles. For truckers, many truck stops could install charging locations for them. Fast charging is really not that complicated or involved once they have batteries in full-production capable of handling fast charge times.

(Quote)
ccombs Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 11:32 am

Yay! H2 research will continue and will undoubtedly find a number of good uses in the future. Batteries are the wave of the future. Of course, we have to remember that while they may be a silver bullet, they are not the diamond-tipped platinum bullet that some make them out to be. They won’t solve all our problems. We need a diverse portfolio of changes to reduce dirty energy consumption and increase energy independence. Primarily, we need PHEVs (possibly with cellolosic ethanol range extenders, although I am not yet convinced cellulosic is a good track for us to take) and natural gas for big trucks (Can’t think of anything better that is feasible). My personal opinion is that, after this, we need lots more 1) wind, 2) solar panels on homes (in sunny places) 3) Nuclear (I think this can be our dominant energy source, like in France if we make it more closed-cycle)

(Quote)
Dr.Science #11 on the list Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 11:34 am

#28 is correct, unless a major technological break through occurs allowing the efficient production of hydrogen, it’s a worthless endevore. Until such happens, GIVE IT UP.

(Quote)
ClarksonCote Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 11:35 am

I would add that, in transportation cases like the trucking goods, the ideal scenario to me in the short term would be to better leverage our rail system, which can effectively yield transportation efficiencies of hundreds of miles per gallon per unit cargo that an 18-wheeler would otherwise be hauling.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 11:51 am

Yes, we can solve the energy crisis
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6256687.ece

(Quote)
Sean Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 11:53 am

No real news here. Fuel cells have always been 10-15 years away since their inception back in the 50’s. Now they are simply taking a more realistic viewpoint.

(Quote)
nataraj Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

“A few years ago hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were considered to be the next phase of automotive propulsion, to replace petroleum. ”

By Whom ? Definitely not the independant experts … hydrogen was just a bait to make California remove their electric car mandates. A pure political play by the car companies.

Joe Romm (climateprogress.org) has written a lot about hydrogen … see his book “The Hype About Hydrogen: Fact and Fiction in the Race to Save the Climate”.

One thing good about hydrogen – and bad about batteries is that batteries are heavy. The notion of individual transport using cars is fundamentally an inefficient one – we move 1000s of lbs in order to move a person of some 200 lb. Batteries make this worse.

(Quote)
truthguy Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 12:29 pm

Jason the Saj @ 20 says it all.

If you are still reading I couldn’t agree with you more. You are a guy who have arrived at the truth. Congradulations on being able to cut through the BS and be a logical thinker. There are too few of us around.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 12:54 pm

Wow a whole $68,000,000 in the budget.

For an idea of what this really amounts to watch this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWt8hTayupE&feature=player_embedded

Worth the watch, just to put things in perspective.

(Quote)
Van Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 12:54 pm

The fool cell is dead, next the man-made global warming hoax.

(Quote)
Rocket Scientist Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 1:25 pm

Excellent move. Obama has been making all the right moves ! Yes He Can !!!

(Quote)
Adrian Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Another sign our new President is a fool. I guess he wants to fund his Haliburton companies killing good tech so GE can become big energy. All you oil haters better see the next new ‘big evil’ being developed… What a waste of 4 years of government coming through. We need more states standing up to the Fed and telling them to stick it.

(Quote)
Adrian Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 1:28 pm

#43… right moves? I guess you consider the 10 trillion dollar debt a good move. Why don’t you pay for my share then. Time for the states to strip power from the Fed…

(Quote)
Battery4Life Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 1:54 pm

Nice to see a U.S. administration that is starting to make sound decisions and not political agenda-based decisions like the previous big-oil administration.

(Quote)
Slave to OPEC Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 1:57 pm

After 10 years and countless millions of dollars wasted on Hydrogen R&D, Uncle Sam has finally realized “H” is a dead end.

They should shift the remainder $68 million towards battery R&D (to drive battery costs down) . Once that’s accomplished, we’ll see some real progress towads meeting the 2015 plug in goal…

(Quote)
iRoc Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 2:00 pm

“Hydrogen” Fuel Cells are a waste of time and money.

But, I’d rather have an SOFC or DEFC than the current ICE range extender.

“Solid Oxide Fuel Cells” can run on just about any Hydrocarbon, including Ethanol, Natural Gas, Propane, Diesel or Gasoline:
http://www.versa-power.com/

“Direct Ethanol Fuel Cells” run on … you guessed it … Ethanol … that can be produced from corn, sugar cane, cellulose, waste wood, and possibly even by combining CO2 with hydrogen produced by electrolyzing water (using renewable energy) and then “Hydrogenating” the CO2 (a well known process in the oil, gas, and plastics industries). Check out LANL’s “Green Freedom”:
http://www.lanl.gov/discover/removing_greenhouse_gases

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 2:05 pm

This thread made it quite a while before succumbing to political rants.
Can’t we just concentrate on trashing hydrogen? (G)
Be well,
Tag
PS Lyle, you’re always stirring the pot….

LJGTVWOTR!!******** NPNS

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 2:28 pm

Best way to transition to renewable energy

1. CONSERVATION
…
…
…
…
…
2. Wind
3. Solar
..
..
..
.
.
.
4 biofuels
/IMO
//hydrogen’s too far down to even list
/// I reserve the right to change this list in the future as technology changes rapidly
////I like to see them all developed, but it just makes sense to put the biggest push behind the ones showing the most foreseeable impact. We’ve got time — we just don’t have a lot of time.

(Quote)
kdawg Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 2:30 pm

Why are we talking about 68 million bucks?

eh..

(Quote)
Owen Money Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

Hydrogen is not viable at this time. There is a consensus on this issue. We must abandon all taxpayer driven development at this time.
It is imperative that we move toward solar and wind.

(Quote)
Zack Lee Wright Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

#52 Owen Money

I totally agree. You are 100% correct.

(Quote)
Barry D. Hatchett Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

Hydrogen was ahead of its time. Glad to see it put in the dust bin where it belongs until costs come down.

(Quote)
Anita Mann Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Obama is moving at amazing speed. First fixing the broken auto companies and now fixing the highly political alternative energy industry. At this rate we should be exiting this republican-induced depression in no time. It looks like we have the right man at the right time. Thank God.

(Quote)
Zach Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:24 pm

#2

What if you live with mom? lol.

(Quote)
jan Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Thumbs down on hydrogen, fine.
E-85???? I’m hoping for thumbs up on E-85 over the short and medium terms and perhaps phase-out when fuelcells, fusion or whatever phases in 20+ years out.

(Quote)
R. Shelby Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:38 pm

Hydrogen is officially done in this country. Now if we can just get rid of some of those other “alternative” energy sources that keep getting funded by our government. It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that Wind and possibly Solar (once the cost of flex cells come down) are our only alternatives.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:39 pm

Hydrogen thread, hell yeah, still 68 million too much IMO.

I read the other day, Mitsubishi is to release the iMiev in NZ next year NZD60,000 for first mover advantage.

/And ppl complain about a 40,000 Volt?

Also read somewhere about ‘Flow Battries’ being developed. Basically you drive into the battery recharge place, they drain out your electrolyte, and, replace it with new charged up stuff.
/Hydrogen is so dead if this one comes off.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:42 pm

R Shelby @ 58 says It is obvious to anyone with half a brain that Wind and possibly Solar (once the cost of flex cells come down) are our only alternatives.

Not obvious to me, I think geothermal has a big part to play as well. It’s base load dude.

LJGTVWOTR
NO plug, NO sale.

(Quote)
Wong Hung Lo Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:44 pm

Don’t worry Volt freaks, your hybrid car was never designed to run of hydroG power anyways. You will be lucky to get decent battery power.

(Quote)
Rick Rolling Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 3:51 pm

I keep seeing NPNS letters on people’s comments.
I assume this means No Plug No Sale.
I also assume you are all talking about iPod Plug.

Why are Volt fans so concerned about this iPod Plug on their new EV. Is this a must have ? Is Apple involved in the Volt development.

Many cars today have iPod connectors built-in but I have never heard a customer not purchase because no iPod plug available.

Just call it the iVolt and everyone will be happy

(Quote)
Edwin Mang Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 4:17 pm

I keep seeing Pickups with boat motors out the back .

LOL whatisupwiththat .

Yes even I have wild dreams .

God Bless

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 4:23 pm

#51 kdawg

Actually, they’re cutting about 100 million. The 68 million is what they’re still spending. That’s still nothing in terms of the federal budget. However, if you cut $100 million in enough places, pretty soon it starts to add up to real money.

Also, it’s a symbolic gesture. By cutting the funding, they’re saying that they want the US to focus on the existing technology that stands a better chance of success. I think that’s a good thing.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 4:26 pm

59NZDavid
“Also read somewhere about ‘Flow Battries’ being developed. Basically you drive into the battery recharge place, they drain out your electrolyte, and, replace it with new charged up stuff.”
========================================================
Ok, thats weird. Either your hearing this from another source, or someone stole my idea from a few posts back. I had mentioned that maybe, thinking out of the box, that a way could be found to replace the charge slurry in the battery with a charged electrolyte, that this would solve the problem with charge times.

Maybe, I should get that patent place soon

Or, maybe my post started the rumor, which would be a kick.

If someone want I will search back and find the exact post, but lazy is my middle name.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 4:27 pm

Rick@62 re plug

The “plug” referred to is the plug to get the electrons from the wall into the car’s battery (not an ipod)
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
JEC Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 4:32 pm

64 LauraM
“…Also, it’s a symbolic gesture. ”
==================================================
Symbolic gesture in my direction please.

100 million can be used to help a lot of people. I guess I hate to demean it to only a symbolic gesture.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 4:43 pm

65 JEC (me)

OK, I got un-lazy and found my old post under “Honda Shifts Gears on Plug-in Electric Cars”
——————————————————————————–

Absolutely! The issue is “foreseeable future”.

Is it possible that battery cost/weight reduces significantly in the foreseeable future?

In my opinion, I believe we will see significant cost and weight reductions in batteries. I also hold out hope for the holy grail, or EESTOR type solution.

Also we need to hold out hope for other “out-of-the-box” solutions. Things such as battery swapping are a possibility, but even things such as a chemical swap may be a possibility, you just never know what someone might come up with. What if you could fill up with a charged electrolyte, instead of gas?

Will this be in our foreseeable future? I guess it depends if you invested in a high quality crystal ball.

(Quote)
JB Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 5:05 pm

The problem with Hydrogen is that there is no infrastructure in place. If this infrastructure had been built it may have worked. Electric cars on the other hand will be perfect. The infrastrucure is already in place in everyone’s home.

(Quote)
statik Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 5:37 pm

#49 Tagament said:

This thread made it quite a while before succumbing to political rants.
Can’t we just concentrate on trashing hydrogen? (G)
Be well,
Tag
PS Lyle, you’re always stirring the pot….

LJGTVWOTR!!******** NPNS
============================
Lyle is always stirring up the pot and being a disturbance…it is very annoying. (j/k)

I also agree with LauraM, that while the amount cut out of the budget here is a mere pittance in the grand scheme of things, the more important thing (at least to those of us who wish h******* would dry up and blow away) is the message it conveys.

—”We made a mistake, we are tired of pretending it is just around the corner, h******* sucks…everyone stop what they are doing with the tech, we are not backing it anymore.”

(Quote)
LauraM Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 5:41 pm

#67 JEC

Oh, I agree. $100 million dollars is a lot of money to ordinary people. (Or even CEOs.). And, they could definately use that money better elsewhere.

It’s just that with the way the federal government flings around billions, $100 million or so won’t even make a dent in the interest on the federal debt.

(Quote)
Dan Petit Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

Hydrogen is apparently just too far away to do us any good right now. These funds need to go to Voltec. Lots of other funding needs to go to Voltec development. If someone discovers how plants produce hydrogen, that would be a breakthrough which ought to trigger Federal Funding without the red tape.
Time is getting too short for us to change over to green electric motoring.
But the State of Texas has gone and put the
****************************
pedal to the metal
****************************
and has aggressively accelerated our Wind Generating Capacity.
We are nearly at
**************************************
8 Gigawatts of Wind energy
**************************************
and, far, far more is in the works for overnight recharging of Voltec Vehicles when they arrive. Texas might possibly end up exporting surplus Wind Energy to other States for the overnight recharging of Voltec vehicles. (I was told by a friend at Austin Energy that Texas has enough wind energy potential so as to power the entire 48 contiguous States of the Union.)
Exporting (only) Wind Energy from Texas should be viewed as no different than the exporting of Texas petroleum when it comes to any demand for overnight recharging of Voltec vehicles in other States.
Not doing so is just plain absurd and ridiculous, it seems to me. That would help other States increase their power mix options for Voltec vehicle owners to “opt-in” to buying “green renewable energy” just as I can “opt-in” next month or so, when my
Smart Electric Meter (for “time-of-day/night rate savings”)
is to be installed at my house.
(By the time Voltec vehicles come out, it will cost only a fraction-of-a-penny more per “green electricity mile” than my regular power-mix rate to power my Voltec vehicle).
Your electricity provider ought to be looking into this by now. I am sure that most people who want “green renewable electricity” for their Voltec vehicle would not mind paying about a quarter a day (for a 40 mile charge) more for Wind-generated energy for their Voltec vehicle.
Dan Petit Austin TX.

(Quote)
Michael C. Robinson Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Hydrogen is the only answer if long range vehicles that are gas
free and particulate pollution free are needed. Obama is short sighted. We have to stop using fossil and biofuels in our transportation system, period. For fuel cell cars, 2015 is the year to look forward to right now. The infrastructure for hydrogen can be
built when the cars become available via hydrogen collectives.
Get a 1 million people together who want hydrogen vehicles
and have them chip in $2k towards construction of a fueling
station for them in exchange for stock.

Infrastructure has to be built whether plug-ins or hydrogen dominates and plug-ins have some serious unsolvable problems. If you fast charge any battery, you shorten the life of that battery.
If plug-in cars have to be both 110 AC outlet and 220 compliant, that complicates the electronics. Most people don’t have 220V
let alone 480V outlets in their garage. A lot of people don’t have
garages. Hydrogen is cheaper when you build a pipeline system
for it than high voltage electric lines and pipelines being underground have less of an environmental impact.

Even if hydrogen stations cost 2 million dollars a piece, that is cheap when compared to the cost of OIL imports where 30%
is used for producing gasoline. There are something like 170k
gas stations but fuel cell cars are more efficient so fewer stations
are needed. At 2 million a station, just a guess, 170k stations would cost at most 340 million dollars. With hydrogen
cooperatives the infrastructure can be built when the cars become
available. Get 1000 people together who need a station that are
willing to put up $2000 a piece, that should be more than enough
money to build a hydrogen station for them.

http://web.robinson-west.com/michael/hydrogen
or
http://xerxes.robinson-west.com/michael/hydrogen

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124199416094004699.html

GM’s getting an all new board of directors soon.

(Quote)
Cautious Fan Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 6:40 pm

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D983HC183.htm

More chatter on the bankruptcy saying it’s all but inevitable.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 6:44 pm

Dan Petit@72 re Texas wind power potential.

Although I agree that the energy is there, how do we get that power to the other states. Big ‘Ol power lines are getting the same NIMBY treatment as nuclear reactors (and often by the same group of people that SUPPORTS wind power itself).
Be well,
Tag

LJGTVWOTR !! NPNS!

(Quote)
RB Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 7:04 pm

#75 carcus 1 says
“More chatter on the bankruptcy saying it’s all but inevitable.”
———————————————

I have been a long-time GM customer, but as GM has slowly transformed itself into one branch of the Obama Motor Group my loyalty is ebbing away. Now I doubt I’ll every purchase another GM vehicle, Volt or otherwise. it’s just too risky.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 7:08 pm

#76 Tag,

Invisible, Underground HVDC Power Costs No More Than Ugly Towers
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/03/invisible-underground-hvdc-power-costs-no-more-than-ugly-towers

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 7:20 pm

#78 (me) add,

I have no idea weather it’d be a good idea to bury HVDC or not. I just found it interesting.

Also, on the Pickens plan: While it’s not the best thing I could imagine. . at least it is something and it’s something that could have a very big impact in the next 10 or 15 years. It appears doable to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pickens_plan

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AWEA_proposed_765KV_AC_super_grid_for_US_wind.jpg

Another add, Hybridization of trucks seems to be making big gains very quickly, and I prefer this idea over converting to NG, but I’m sure it’ll be expensive and it could take decades to change the fleet out. Swithcing to Natural gas would be a pretty quick stop gap in the interim. The biggest downside that I can see on the NG stuff is that the stepping stone could become the destination.

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 7:22 pm

carcus1@78
Thanks for the link. I’m reading up on it now.
Be well,
Tag

(Quote)
Allan Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 7:25 pm

This is the best news I’ve heard in a while! If the car companies are so sold on H, they can pursue it themselves!

Electric cars are so much more realistic! The Prius is proof that batteries are the key to efficient energy!

I think Ethanol funding should be cut as well, but maybe the future will prove me wrong.

Electric car revolution! It’s coming 2011! Watch and see!

(Quote)
Herm Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 7:29 pm

nonsense.. all it takes is a 10 cent part in the charger.
…………………………..
#73 Michael C. Robinson Says:

If plug-in cars have to be both 110 AC outlet and 220 compliant, that complicates the electronics.

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:08 pm

______________________________________________________
Keep buying gas, Hugo Chávez needs your support…

“To God what is God’s, and to Caesar what is Caesar’s”

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b332e432-3d54-11de-a85e-00144feabdc0.html
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Energy = American Energy Independence
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
texas Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:39 pm

Chu is a smart guy but he can’t do this all alone. Where is the Apollo Energy plan? When is there going to be a group of experts working hard to transition our energy policy to a more sustainable model?

We have a petroleum supply crisis and we need a plan to move away from fossil fuels in the most logical way (petroleum first – it’s hitting peak first). This will take decades to accomplish so Chu better get his genius brain in gear and put together a team and get to work.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:41 pm

Michael C. Robinson

This must be a sad, sad day for you. You have my condolences.

;<(

Sorry, I just could not help myself…

(Quote)
JEC Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:43 pm

opps

(Quote)
JEC Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:50 pm

Michael C. Robinson

PS Check your math: “At 2 million a station, just a guess, 170k stations would cost at most 340 million dollars. ”

Not even close! 2X10^6 * 170*10^3 = $340 BILLION! Your off by a factor of 1000!!!!!!!!!!!

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:56 pm

______________________________________________________
Keep buying gas, Saudi Cleric’s need your support…

Saudi Court OKs 8 year year girl to be tradded to pay off debt.

Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh:
“It is incorrect to say that it’s not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger”

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/04/12/saudi.child.marriage/index.html
______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Energy = American Energy Independence
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
Tagamet Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 8:58 pm

carcus1 re HVDC transmission article:

Did you read the comments following that article?
Be well,
Tag
LJGTVWOTR!!********NPNS

(Quote)
ClarksonCote Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:02 pm

#59 NZDavid, #65 JEC,

The concept of refueling a battery much like refueling a car with gasoline has been around for a while with something called Zinc Air technology, but something made it impractical. I suspect it was an energy density issue, but I don’t recall. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinc-air_battery has some information. It states high energy densities, but I think that the rechargeable/fuel-cell type concept had trouble meeting the theoretically high densities.

The idea was pretty novel and interesting though. You’d have zinc pellets in the battery, that in the presence of an electrolyte would change to zinc oxide, and produce electricity. At a refueling station, you’d simply remove the zinc oxide and put fresh zinc pellets in again to continue on your way. The zinc oxide removed would be converted back to zinc and oxygen using electricity, and the reformed zinc would then be available for some other car down the road to put back into their battery.

/me likes the idea, wishes the tech came to fruition.

(Quote)
Tom H Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:04 pm

The New York Times picked up on this on their Friday front page. The full article made an additional point many readers will find interesting. The remaining funds for fuel cell research will be shifted away from automotive and into stationary fuel cells to enable storage of power at solar and wind power stations. A big drawback of solar and wind is that they are intermittent. No solar at night or when its raining, and no wind power when the wind doesn’t blow. Fuel cells would be part of a hydrogen cycle which would level out the power output of the installation by making hydrogen when the sun shines or wind blows, storing it, then when there is no sun or wind available, running the hydrogen through a fuel cell to make power.

The new DOE funding plan is to support using fuel cells at renewable power stations.

I am not convinced this is a better idea than just building a lot of nuclear power plants,. but large stationary fuel cell installations over come many of the stumbling blocks which fuel cell cars face:

1. No good source of hydrogen. Hydrogen is made using “excess” electricity.
2. No hydrogen infrastructure. None needed. Hydrogen produced at source, power distributed via electrical grid.
3. Hydrogen hard to store. Big heavy hydrogen tanks are not a problem for a stationary installation.
4. Fuel cells too expensive to build. Construction costs of fuel cells amortized quicker, because equipment is used more hours per day.
5. Fuel cells wear out to quickly. Fuel cells do well with super pure hydrogen. Providing super pure hydrogen is much easier when it is produced on site.

(Quote)
JEC Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:10 pm

90 ClarksonCote

Gee, thanks….and I thought I had the market cornered on this. Just my luck, and I was just ready to tell the wife to get ready for early retirement

I do like the idea. If feasible, this could be one of several “real” solutions to our current energy issues.

Thanks for the information.

(Quote)
ClarksonCote Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:14 pm

#92 JEC,

You’re welcome. Sorry about ruining your IPO plans

I hope some more work goes into the technology. I followed it for a while and though all transportation-related work on it seems to have disappeared, I couldn’t find any real information as to why it did, though I suppose I could’ve looked harder. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Hydrogen high everyone got was a big distraction.

If you Google hard enough you might find the company that was working with the gov’t to make a Zinc-air powered bus. Maybe some day the tech will be enticing again. Seems like it had a lot less barriers than hydrogen!

(Quote)
CDAVIS Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:15 pm

______________________________________________________
Keep buying gas, Nigeria Oil Co. needs your support…

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13095

______________________________________________________
Electric Cars + Nuclear Energy = American Energy Independence
______________________________________________________

(Quote)
JEC Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:28 pm

Latest news:
“Experts say GM bankruptcy almost inevitable”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090511/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gm_inevitable_bankruptcy

I think I saw the grim reaper sharpening his scythe…..

(Quote)
Brian Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:31 pm

we continue to hear the debate about what technology is best and where we should invest our R&D dollars.

The thing that has dissapointed me over the last 30 years is that the US has not had an energy policy or plan. We just randomly let the markets take us where they will.

I was hoping we were going to see the Govt put together a comprehensive “Energy Plan” and then invest money to implement that plan. I was looking for something like Google’s Clean Energy 2030 Proposal.

The current administration has started throwing money at different technologies, but it isn’t tied to a specific plan that defines the goal, the specific objectives, and the measurements we will use to determine progress.

I am hoping we will still see a US energy plan in the near future, but the longer we go without any discussion, the less hopeful I feel.

(Quote)
CS Guy Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:47 pm

The president has made yet another great decision. He is proving to be as well-intentioned and capable as he is intelligent (can’t guess who I voted for huh?) Hydrogen fuel cells are nothing but a distraction to keep us hooked on oil for several more decades. It looks like GM has finally caught on as well.

The only way we will survive is by the following, in somewhat order
1. Solar
2. Wind
3. Nuclear (yes, we need to double or triple the number of nuke power plants)
4. Geothermal
… all the above needs to be greatly expanded
5. Hydroelectric dams – just keep the ones we have already, the environmental damage just doesn’t equal the benefit of new dams

=NOPLUGNOSALE: ELECTRIC CARS + RENEWABLES + NUCLEAR POWER = INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 9:51 pm

#89 Tagamet,

“carcus1 re HVDC transmission article:
Did you read the comments following that article?”
________

Yes. Looked like most of the talk was about transmission line loss vs. cost on DC vs. AC and safety issues. I didn’t see much of an argument on the safety side. Your always supposed to get a digging permit and it’s the same kind of risk posed by gas and lower power elecric lines. (i.e. you hit it, you could die). I would imagine the real obstacle is the same as on regular utility lines — cost.

(Quote)
koz Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:09 pm

The should take the other $68M and add $332M more and offer it as a prize for most commercially viable tech that exceeds a baseline of criteria for a light duty vehicle RE (80kw, 50% efficiency if fossile fuel, practically implementable infrastructure for fuel distribution but with preference to utilization of existing infrastructure, <$0.25/kwh, 0.8kwh/kg, etc). Biofuel combustion, hydrogren fuel cell, hydrogen combustion, micro-turbine, free piston, non-hydrogen fuel cell, atkinson rotary, 5-stroke, compound rotary, and many other potential electrical generation sources would compete on equal footing for the prize. May the best tech win. Combine this winner and perhaps runner ups with 2015 battery tech and the remaining light duty vehicle solution issues will dwindle to just one, fleet turnover.

(Quote)
DonC Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:10 pm

#50 carcus1

I’m with conservation being the lowest hanging fruit, but coal isn’t on the list. We have it in spades. India has it in spades. And China has it in spades. There are technologies which might make it doable so I was glad they decided to go ahead with the coal-hydrogen plant.

You also didn’t have nuclear on the list. Solar and wind are good but you have the transportation problem and they’re not baseline.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:12 pm

#98 (me) add,

Better discussion here: (one of the commenters apparently designs underground power distribution for a living)

Why Don’t We Bury More Power Lines?
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/03/why-dont-we-bury-more-power-lines

(Quote)
koz Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:21 pm

ClarksonCote #90

People talked a lot about ZincAir a couple of years ago. I think the main drawback was power density (practical weights yielded 10-12kw) not energy density but this is from old memories of 3rd hand knowledge. Seemed like a reasonable complement for a 150+ mile EREV if cost was in line.

(Quote)
carcus1 Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:26 pm

#100 DonC,

My post @ 50 was oriented towards just renewables.

To your point, as far as U.S. supplies go, you’re right. Most sources say we won’t see coal run out for 100++ years. But, of course, that kind of thinking 90 years ago is what got us where we are today.

(Quote)
CS Guy Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 10:26 pm

Let’s replace the fearmongering with HOPE spreading.

Yes we can (be independent from foreign oil by 2020).

=NOPLUGNOSALE: ELECTRIC CARS + RENEWABLES + NUCLEAR POWER = INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM

(Quote)
Solo Says:
May 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm

#19 BillR makes reference to a bill in congress called ‘Markey-Waxman’. The goal of the bill is to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. I haven’t read the bill but the only way government can mandate such drastic reductions is taxes on fuel. What most pin-heads in congress, as well as the talking heads on cable news don’t pay attention to is the following table. It shows the world population growth from 1950 to present and projects the population growth rate out to 2050. I don’t know how accurate the projections will be, but rest assured the population of earth will be much higher in 2050 than it is today, barring any comet impacts or super-volcano explosions.

Unless the population of the earth is stabilized, CO2 emissions will continue to rise. I have seen a lot of promising technologies that scientists said were going to change the world in the last 40 years and they were all, and I mean ALL wrong. The technologies that DID change the world (The electronic and communications revolutions, the de-industrializing of the U.S. were not predicted by anybody that I remember. Everybody is predicting that new clean sources of energy will completely replace the big 3 (gas/oil/coal) in 50 years. I got news for the world, ITS NOT GONNA HAPPEN. Gas/oil/coal will be with us for a LONG time. We may burn them cleaner, we may use them more efficiently, but they ain’t going away. With the world population increasing and the advancement of the 2 most populated countries on earth, more and more fuel will be needed. The new technologies, will only, at best slow the growth in demand for the big 3.

Does anybody here really believe that 9.3 billion people are going to use substantially less of the big 3 than 6.8 billion people do today?

Cars like the Volt will transfer, not eliminate the source of the fuel from the neighborhood gas station to the neighborhood coal/Natural gas/diesel fired power plant. That may be a more efficient use of the big 3, but it does not eliminate it.
——————————————————————————————————-

(historical and projected)
Year Total world population
(mid-year figures) Ten-year growth rate (%)
1950 2,556,000,053 18.9%
1960 3,039,451,023 22.0
1970 3,706,618,163 20.2
1980 4,453,831,714 18.5
1990 5,278,639,789 15.2
2000 6,082,966,429 12.6
2010 6,848,932,929 10.7
2020 7,584,821,144 8.7
2030 8,246,619,341 7.3
2040 8,850,045,889 5.6
2050 9,346,399,468 —

(Quote)
Jim in PA Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 6:19 am

The government is right to maintain some small level of R&D in hydrogen, like electrolytic generation of hydrogen from water. The day that becomes commercially feasible, look for the oil company support to drop like flies. But, as stated here, hydrogen will not play a role in the short term, and as such should be reduced and refocused.

(Quote)
BillR Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 7:19 am

#105 Solo,

You have touched upon a subject that is politically incorrect to discuss, but which I consider to be the root of many problems.

There aren’t many people that I consider to be role models (none are politicians) but this guy is one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_MacCready

Besides designing the first practical human-powered aircraft, his company, subcontracted to GM, designed the GM Impact, the predecessor to the EV1.

Many years ago I read an interview with him in a trade magazine, and he was asked what was the biggest problem that we faced – energy, pollution, etc.

His answer – World Overpopulation.

(Quote)
statik Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 7:30 am

#105 solo

Some truths are too large for people to even acknowledge…that is one of them. Even now we have probably 5 billion too many people.

I am not so bold as to even suggest any possible solutions, lest WWIII breaks out by anyone who happens to have, say…more than 2 children.

(Quote)
Electric Vehicle Owner Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 9:43 am

The key is electric drive. Once you have that in vehicles, the vehcles can use whatever energy carrier or mix of energy carriers makes the most sense at any time and/or based on consumer demand. Electricity is agnostic – it doesn’t care what energy or fuel source you start with, nor what type of energy carrier (battery, compressed air, natural gas, hydrogen, whatever, etc. etc., etc.) your vehicle has, nor how refueling points store that energy, if needed.

In the short run, the obvious emphasis is in getting electric vehicles on the roads through large scale production and and consumer education (called marketing) of its natural advantages, such as superior torque off the line and life of vehicle efficiencies. Simultaneously, we will continue work on the underlying renewable energy sources, energy storage (stationary and at vehicle level) and distribution issues to make electric vehicle use easier and easier. In this case, electric drive is the cake and all the things that make it work well and easily are the frosting. Cake is fundamental and we’ll keep making that frosting better and better.

I’ve never seen humans have so much trouble falling off a log as making the switch to electric drive. Go to your local car dealer and DEMAND one today. Tell them you are NOT buying another vehicle again ever unless it has performance electric drive.

Folks in Montana have absolutely no excuse for not making the switch NOW as they can get a ZENN, change the algorithm to make it a medium speed vehicle, put in high energy density batteries and just stay off the interstates (1% of all public roads, anyway). Sure, it takes a little different habit forming and driving style when you first use an electroc drive vehicle, but way, way less than when you learned to tie your shoelaces.

(Quote)
noel park Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 10:23 am

GOOD!

#108 statik:

Who was it that said, “In the long run we’re all dead”? 4 words – “Hot, Flat and Crowded”.

(Quote)
Silvio Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 10:44 am

Why did GW Bush start this Hidrogen program in 2003? No clue? Come on guys, it’s obvious: because he (and his friends from big oil) knew that this program will not threaten their business. At the same time, they were killing the EV1 (which by contrast did threaten their business big time).
Nu further questions, your honor.

(Quote)
Dave G Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 11:10 am

#111 Silvio Says: Why did GW Bush start this Hydrogen program in 2003? No clue? Come on guys, it’s obvious: because he (and his friends from big oil) knew that this program will not threaten their business. At the same time, they were killing the EV1 (which by contrast did threaten their business big time).
————————————————————————————–
That’s why they call them FOOL SELLs. They are (were) meant to deceive us.

(Quote)
ClarksonCote Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 11:44 am

#102 koz,

I think you’re right, power density was an issue with their development. Although, it seems like that could be overcome relatively easily with either capacitors or a sufficient number of battery cells being used (similar to Tesla’s approach with conventional Li-Ion)

(Quote)
Slash Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 12:00 pm

Dumping H is the right move. Looks like Obama is fixing everything these days. Next fix: GM

(Quote)
Jerome Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

In the pantheon of electrical generation I’m glad someone mentioned dams. If global warming continues (man caused or purely natural) then less water will be stored as snow pack/glaciers and we’ll need more dams to hold rain water……even in Arizona we had to spill water this year because we can’t store all the rain water that falls below Powell/Mead….so if you need to build dams you might as well use them to make kWh while you are at it…..you can generate kWh from fairly small dams these days….we even have some small demonstration generation on the Arizone canal where you have a 15 foot elevation drop but constant flow.

(Quote)
Patrick Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

During his campaign Obama pretended to be “Green” so as to sucker in his Sheep and the ‘Youth Vote’.

But now we see that he’s not so green after all.

Obama’s promise of a green future is just another lie.
I guess we better get used to it …….

But don’t worry – “Change” will come.

In the mean time – The count down is on.
Only 3 years and 8 months to go !!!!

(Quote)
Tom H Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

Gas/oil/coal will be with us for a LONG time. We may burn them cleaner, we may use them more efficiently, but they ain’t going away. With the world population increasing and the advancement of the 2 most populated countries on earth, more and more fuel will be needed. The new technologies, will only, at best slow the growth in demand for the big 3.

Does anybody here really believe that 9.3 billion people are going to use substantially less of the big 3 than 6.8 billion people do today?
——————————————————————————-
With a trillion dollar investment over 30 years, we could build enough nuclear power plants in the US to replace fossil fuels for space heating, lighting, industrial power, and most transportation for a population 3 times what we have today.

The fossil fuels still used (aviation and chemical feed stocks) would face a low residual demand. Prices would fall and imports would not be needed.

The only real change needed is that you build a power plant in 4 years. One year planning, 3 years construction, as opposed to the current 33 years, consisting of 30 years litigation, 3 years construction. This could be done if a majority in congress passed an air tight nuclear regulatory act stating that nuclear plants are legal in the US, and severely limiting the jurisdiction of courts from halting construction.

(Quote)
Tom H Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 2:13 pm

The key is electric drive. Once you have that in vehicles, the vehcles can use whatever energy carrier or mix of energy carriers makes the most sense at any time and/or based on consumer demand. Electricity is agnostic – it doesn’t care what energy or fuel source you start with, nor what type of energy carrier (battery, compressed air, natural gas, hydrogen, whatever, etc. etc., etc.) your vehicle has, nor how refueling points store that energy, if needed.
=======================================
I think you are mistaken. With all the Volt Mules, GM hydrogen cars, Toyota hydrogen cars and Teslas running around, it is clear that electric drive is a solved problem. The unsolved problem is how to build a practical, economical system for providing onboard power to the vehicle’s electrical system. Fuel cells are impractical, for reasons listed avove. Batteries still cost 2-3 times what they would have to to enable family transportation which is affordable, and competitive with gasoline.

Ditching the H2 car is a good move, it is no where near passing the economic feasibility hurdle. Pursuing PHEVs is also a good move, because they are within striking distance of being practical. If gas prices double (an eventual inevitability) and battery prices halve (plausible but not a slam dunk), then PHEVs will rule. They will continue to rule until (if ever) batteries halve again, and BEVs become practical for widespread use.

(Quote)
Tom H Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 2:31 pm

During his campaign Obama pretended to be “Green” so as to sucker in his Sheep and the ‘Youth Vote’.

But now we see that he’s not so green after all.

===============================
Obama is plenty Green. Much too green, IMO. H2 cars have been ditched because they are inherently imractical. The Greenies have to get over their habit of loving alternative energy sources which are impractical, and hating the pracitical ones.

(Quote)
solo Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

117 Tom H. I agree we need MUCH more electrical generating capacity with nuclear power. There hasn’t been a nuclear plant built in the U.S. since 3 mile Island. If a republican president and a republican congress couldn’t pass the legislation you are proposing, do you really thing the democratic congress and president will?

There are envrionmentalist fighting now to prevent SOLAR farms from being built in the desert. The nuclear question is completely off the table as far out as I can see.

Also, I think it will take a lot more than a trillion dollars even if the legislation was passed. The federal government spent that much just this year in excess of reciepts and accomplished pretty much nothing.

(Quote)
Electric Vehicle Owner Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

Electric drive and energy carriers 001
Lesson plan #1.

I said Electric “vehicles can use whatever energy carrier or mix of energy carriers makes the most sense at any time and/or based on consumer demand. Electricity is agnostic – it doesn’t care what energy or fuel source you start with, nor what type of energy carrier (battery, compressed air, natural gas, hydrogen, whatever, etc. etc., etc.) your vehicle has, nor how refueling points store that energy, if needed.”
=======================================
Tom H said :”I think you are mistaken.”

I made statements of fact, not mistakes. You have to show credibly supported contradictory facts that rebut mine, which are based on elementary readings of how electricity interacts with energy carriers, sources and storage and real world personal experience with electric drive vehicles, if you want to try to show that my facts are incorrect.

Tom H said “With all the Volt Mules, GM hydrogen cars, Toyota hydrogen cars and Teslas running around, it is clear that electric drive is a solved problem.”

I agree.

Tom H said “The unsolved problem is how to build a practical, economical system for providing onboard power to the vehicle’s electrical system. Fuel cells are impractical, for reasons listed avove. Batteries still cost 2-3 times what they would have to to enable family transportation which is affordable, and competitive with gasoline.”

The problem is, in fact, solved, though not perfected. Current power packs exist at acceptable enough prices that provide sufficient range and refueling options that electric vehicle sales exist worldwide and are growing every month. That the solution is capable of improvement does not negate the existence and reality of the good enough solution that’s real right this second.

Batteries are good enough to provide viable electric drive for those who want it right this second. Batteries are energy carriers, which can hold and deliver electrical energy made from any fuel source, while gasoline is a fuel source, derived for nonrewable oil, two different concepts, so they cannot by definition, be in competition. Batteries can hold and deliver electricity made from gasoline and many, many other energy sources, while gasoline cannot hold electricity without some possibly very exciting things happening that may invoke fire trucks.

Electric drive is simply different from internal combustion drive, Each has strengths and weaknesses. Electric drive weaknesses, however, such as good enough, but not perfect, on board energy carriers for now, can only improve, while gasoline based technology is mature and has already hit close to the maximum theoretic limits of efficiency, cheapness and strengths.

(Quote)
Mark Z Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 5:14 pm

Hydrogen hype killed the EV-1 at the CARB meeting. Obama must have viewed “Who Killed the Electric Car?” How sweet to see the EV leaders fighting back.

(Quote)
NZDavid Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 11:30 pm

carcus1, Tag et al.

As part of the wind farm project I am currently giving evidence on an undergrounding option was looked at.

For the last 8 kilometers the cost was NZD 41 million.
The overhead cost, in comparison, for the entire 24 kilometers was NZD 33 million.

To bury the entire cable along existing roadways would have been a length of 38 kilometers at NZD ~340 million. For a 540 MW project at just over NZD 1 billion, that’s just not cost effective.

(Quote)
BobbyG Says:
May 11th, 2009 at 11:52 pm

This was nothing more or less than a boondogle designed by the petroleum industry to divert resources from all realistic solutions.

Where to get the hydrogen? If it is natural gas then why not burn this directly? If electrolysis then grossly inefficient.

How to store, how to transport, how to store in auto, how to convert to electricity?

It took a scientist at Secretary of Energy to see through this charade

(Quote)
Tom Williams Says:
May 12th, 2009 at 11:55 am

GM gave me the opportunity to have the Equinox Fuel Cell for 3 months as my everyday driver. The thing I like to emphasize to people is that this car IS an Electric Vehicle that can be refueled in about 5 minutes that only emits water vapor. A lot of the things we have discussed in Project Driveway (the group that GM started to run the Fuel Cell program) has been used in the design of the Volt. Also the EV1 is alive and well inside the Equinox. A lot of the complaints people give can be resolved over time and with money. Everyone has their favorite variation on the solution to CO2, foreign oil and such. To not do R&D in all arenas makes no sense. If we spend money on fusion it only makes sense continue finding breakthroughs in hydrogen.

(Quote)
N Riley Says:
May 12th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

I guess if I were one of the companies receiving federal grants for developing fuel cell technology, I would be disappointed too. There is a lot of federal money going through the fuel cell pipeline, but like a lot of other government sponsored development programs there is more interest in keeping the money coming than producing a working model that could be put into wide spread use. Same thing goes for cancer research and many other programs living large on the taxpayer’s dollar.

(Quote)
DaveP Says:
May 13th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

About freeeking time!!

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax

“The problem with this expenditure is not simply the waste; the government throws away vaster sums on any number of other useless programs all the time. Rather, the real issue is that the myth of the hydrogen economy has masked the administration’s total failure to address the nation’s vulnerability to energy blackmail. In consequence, despite the obvious relationship between oil dependence and the war with Islamist terrorism, no competent policy for achieving energy security has been put forth. If we are to achieve any progress on this most critical issue, the myth of the hydrogen economy needs to be debunked. It is bad science, bad economics, and bad public policy.”

(Quote)
Michael C. Robinson Says:
May 13th, 2009 at 5:22 pm

Very little was spent by government on hydrogen prior to the cuts.
This was a very small expenditure compared to the cost of importing
OIL. Hydrogen is the ONLY way to achieve energy independence.
Only hydrogen can be extracted from practically anything and only
hydrogen plus a fuel cell has propelled a car for 200+ miles without
a drop of gasoline. The Volt will never be gasoline free without the
use of hydrogen. If we get great at producing biofuels, there is still
the particulate pollution and there is a major CO2 problem. Yes biofuels are CO2 neutral, but that isn’t good enough. Hydrogen is
not a big oil scam. I voted against Obama because he is a Christian hating racist who thinks the country’s enemies in North Korea and Iran are people worth talking too yet people here who promote the Judeo Christian ethic of respect life are terrorists according to him. Under Obama, freedom of religion won’t last much longer and clearly without substantial private investment neither will petroleum freedom come to pass. The hydrogen budgent, a pitiful 2 billion over a long time span, was nothing compared to the budget for the Manhattan project or the Apollo missions. Fuel cell technology comes from the space shuttle
and Apollo programs as those programs are what it was
originally developed for. A former GM executive who was a
hydrogen advisor to the current Administration resigned from
DOE in protest. In Europe, HyNor is going forward. Japan is
going forward with hydrogen with Toyota and Honda saying that
their fuel cell programs won’t be affected. GM’s program will be
affected though. From 1997 to 2007 Honda went from a fuel
cell that had maybe a 60 kw output to one that has a 97 kw or
better output and fits in an area the size of a small briefcase.
Where will Honda and Toyota be in 2015 when they plan to
commercialize fully their fuel cell technology? GM is behind
Honda and Toyota in fuel cell technology where Toyota has a
fuel cell SUV that has gone 500 miles on a single fueling.

I disagree with the notion that Islamist terrorism is merely a matter
of OIL security. It has nothing to do with OIL. Islamic extremists
hate Christians and other non muslims. Only a fool thinks, if we
don’t need to secure OIL there won’t be a problem anymore.

(Quote)
Michael C. Robinson Says:
May 13th, 2009 at 7:10 pm

If you fast charge a battery, you wear it out faster. If you
slow charge a battery, you are talking 4-8 hours or more
to charge it fully. The Volt’s battery in the best situation,
you aren’t flooring it to get on the freeway and you aren’t
running the air conditioner or the radio, will only propel
the car for 40 miles. Hydrogen fuel cell cars don’t have
the limitations that battery electric cars do. Fuel cell cars
made today have a 200+ mile range. Even the new Tesla
car can’t go 200 miles without recharging.

It isn’t just .10 cents to allow charging at 220 as well
as 110, it’s a whole lot more money in the form of
battery replacements because you are wearing the
battery out faster. There is a limit on how quickly
a battery can absorb energy, the rest has to be
accounted for in the form of heat. By the way, there
are losses in transmission lines that have to be
accounted for as well when well to wheels efficiency
is calculated. I bet with a good hydrogen pipeline that
it’s more efficient to pump hydrogen than it is to transmit
electricity. Once you have hydrogen, use it directly.

Fast charging isn’t feasible and battery swapping is
unacceptable. Do you really want to swap your battery
for another one that has more miles on it than yours
does? Do you want to stop every 40 miles to swap
your battery out? What happens to all these batteries
when they wear out, and they will wear out? If people
say we’ll just use the range extender, petroleum dependence
will become permanent. The environmental devastation will
become apparent long before we run out of OIL. Say we get
through 100 years on the OIL that remains, that is probably
far too optimistic. There aren’t very many new refineries and
worse it is getting harder and harder to find high quality crude
OIL.

Yes to the Honda FCX Clarity, I expect it to go nation wide within
6 years time. I also expect to see a fuel cell offering from Toyota
which has a fuel cell SUV that can go 500 miles on a single fill
of hydrogen. I can’t emphasive enough that fuel cell cars refuel
in 3-30 minutes depending on the compression efficiency of the station they are being fueled at. For fuel cell cars the major
problem is a public relations one. Battery electric cars on the other
hand are plagued by major engineering obstables that include range and durability limitations. If the Clarity hits the market for
$30k or less and the Volt stay above $40k, you can bet that I’ll
be buying a Clarity.

(Quote)
CM Says:
May 14th, 2009 at 1:51 am

Lets debunk some myths:
“Hydrogen is the ONLY way to achieve energy independence.”
No, H2 isn’t an energy source, it is an energy carrier, and it requires electrical energy or chemical energy to make it.

“Only hydrogen can be extracted from practically anything”
No, both electricity and H2 can be made from the same energy sources, including fossil fuels and renewables. But to make H2 from renewable energy sources or nuclear power requires making electricity first. The combination of electrolysis, compression for storage, and fuel cells is only 23% efficient at storing electrical energy, but charger and batteries are 85% efficient. Going the H2 route would require 3x more electricity, that means less electricity from renewables left over to displace fossil fuel use!

“only hydrogen plus a fuel cell has propelled a car for 200+ miles without a drop of gasoline”
No, there are several EVs that have gone over 200 miles per charge, and the Tesla Roadster is EPA rated at 244 miles under normal driving. No gas there.

“I bet with a good hydrogen pipeline that it’s more efficient to pump hydrogen than it is to transmit electricity”
Not even close. The transmission grid is 90% to 98% efficient, depending on distance. Electrolysis wastes far more energy, more energy is lost to pump the gas through the pipeline, and the fuel cell itself looses energy. Moreover, as the smallest of all molecules, H2 leaks through any crack and diffuses through any material, meaning energy losses through leaks. The efficiency of going the H2 route is horrible. For those reasons, the per mile fuel cost of driving electric will always be much less than the per mile fuel cost of driving on H2.

“Do you really want to swap your battery for another one that has more miles on it than yours does?”
If it is leased, why would you care, it’s not yours, it belongs to the leasing/battery swap company.

“Do you want to stop every 40 miles to swap your battery out?”
No, but you wouldn’t. A 40 mile pack would only be used for a plug-in hybrid like the Volt, or a slow speed NEV, neither one would use swapping. Battery swapping only makes sense for pure BEVs with much longer range that are designed for it.

“What happens to all these batteries when they wear out”
They get recycled, as will fuel cells because they wear out, too. In fact, fuel cells don’t last as long as standard LiIon batteries, and some new types of LiIon (like the ones used in the Volt) should last over 10 years or 300,000 miles.

“If the Clarity hits the market for $30k or less and the Volt stay above $40k”
Won’t happen, the Clarity has a half million dollar fuel cell, and the carbon fiber H2 storage tank alone costs more than the Volt battery – and don’t forget, the Clarity has a LiIon battery, too!

Sorry, but it would take a long series of major breakthroughs to bring the cost of H2FC vehicles down to affordable. Plug-ins start with a huge advantage in both cost and efficiency, and it is very unlikely that H2FC vehicles will ever overcome that advantage.

(Quote)
Michael C. Robinson Says:
May 15th, 2009 at 6:10 pm

Fuel cells have lasted for 50k miles of driving and those fuel cells
are old technology. Platinum free fuel cells are proving to be
much cheaper and far more resilient.

The Clarity is NOT half a million dollars. It is leased for
$600/month for 3 years for a total lease price of $21,600 and that
includes maintenance. The Clarity is made in a dedicated factory.
If Honda eliminates the high cost materials and improves the
reliability at the same time, mass production will bring the price
down even further. Honda thinks it can figure out fuel cell cars
faster than it can figure out BEVs and I agree with them on that.
Honda has been making quantum leaps with fuel cell technology.
All of the automakers are saying that 2015 is the year for the fuel
cell car. The automakers, including GM, are planning to try and commercialize fuel cell vehicles in 2015. That is 6 years away,
not 10,20,30,40, or 50 like so many people think.

Hydrogen does not go through any material you use or fuel cell
vehicles wouldn’t work at all. You can’t use mild steel for
hydrogen pipelines, but when I talk about a $500k a mile pipeline
it isn’t made of mild steel. It is a carbon fiber pipeline with a layer
of aluminum. In the future a hydrogen carrier will probably be used
so that hydrogen can be easily distributed. Yes PEM fuel fuel cells
are limited in their temperature range and incapable of heating a
hydrogen carrier to 350C easily, but hydrogen ICE’s aren’t. I’m
sure that a solution will be found to address the temperature
problem so that solid and slurry storage of hydrogen can be
used in automotive applications. Even without a non gaseous
hydrogen system, fuel cell cars are well on their way to being
commercializeable. Obama shouldn’t have cut funding for hydrogen
research, he should have increased it.

As far as a long series of breakthroughs is concerned, you are ready to claim that hydrogen needs many breakthroughs to
reach the mainstream when these breakthroughs are
happening, but you deny that any breakthroughs are needed
to make battery electric vehicles practical. The fact is, a fuel
cell vehicle has and probably always will have greater range
than a battery electric vehicle. E-REV’s go further than both,
but E-REVs use gasoline or ethanol which are highly toxic when burned.

It is not fuel cells or battery electric vehicles. Fact, fuel cell cars
and battery electric cars use many of the same parts. Think,
electric motors, there are small batteries in fuel cell cars, there
tend to be regenerative braking systems on both BEV and
H2FC vehicles like the Chevy Volt Hydrogen. Honda made 100
vehicles and leased them in Southern California for $600/month.
I know that those vehicles didn’t cost $1 million a piece or there
would be a $980k loss times 100. How can Honda absorb that
kind of a loss?

You are willing to rip on hydrogen, but you deny that there are any
problems whatsoever with battery electric vehicles. Well, there are
many problems with batteries. The batteries one needs are
still too heavy pound for miles and they still wear out too quickly
for the price you have to pay for them. Worse, Lithium is a limited
resource unless we find a way to mine the ocean which is environmentally unwise.

Fuel cell cars have a distinct advantage over BEVs in that they are
electric cars without the heavy and expensive battery and they are
able to travel much further. The Clarity only stores hydrogen at
5000 lbs per square inch and on 4 kg of hydrogen it can go 200-240 miles. There isn’t a reasonably priced battery electric car on the market that can do that. Jump to 10k PSI hydrogen storage, you have the Toyota fuel cell SUV that can go 516 miles on a single fill of hydrogen. With fuel cell cars, range isn’t the problem. The only problem that is blocking commercialization of fuel cell cars
right now is the lack of hydrogen refueling stations and some
solvable cost issues.

As far as plug-ins cost advantage, I can buy a lot of gasoline for
$8-$10k dollars. On paper, the gen1 Volt isn’t going to pencil out
if it sells for $40k or more. Most people spend $15-$17k on a slightly used car, so the Volt won’t be sold to the masses driving
the cost up. I’d rather spend $8-$10k extra on a hydrogen fuel
cell car than a battery electric vehicle because I can get further
on hydrogen than I can on a battery and hydrogen will probably
be cheaper than gasoline.

I take issue with your 98% efficient transmission line comment.
I bet that half of the energy that is transmitted is lost, especially
on low voltage long distance rural lines. If this isn’t the case,
why have so many people opted to go off grid that live in remote
areas discovering that that is cheaper than having utility lines
dragged in?

Obama, fool that he is, has politicized the debate about whether
fuel cell cars or battery electric cars are the future. They have
been developing together where cutting funding for one will
hurt development of the other. Hydrogen in gaseous form or
some hydrogen carrier that PEM fuel cells can work with is the
future. I don’t see a 7 fold increase in battery capacity
happening anytime soon let alone a major cost reduction.
Lithium ION batteries are already mass produced, the cost savings
of mass production have already been realized.

(Quote)
Department of Energy Proposes Slashing Hydrogen Fuel Cell Budget | CARSREVIEW.CO.UK Says:
May 18th, 2009 at 8:23 am
GM bankruptcy seen as all but inevitable - Page 2 - Debate Politics Forums Says:
May 19th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
How To Improve Air Quality With Alternative Fuels! | Chemical Agents Says:
May 23rd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
Department of Energy Proposes Slashing Hydrogen Fuel Cell Budget … | your green ability Says:
June 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 am
Department of Energy Proposes Slashing Hydrogen Fuel Cell Budget … | Fresh Green World Says:
July 23rd, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts

Hacked e-mails reveal global-warming fraud? November 20, 2009
This is how open minded liberals operate. "And, perhaps most reprehensibly," Delingpole writes, "a long series of communications discussing how best... […]
BigCityCat
Is the Volt Engine Direct Injected? November 20, 2009
I recently read that the Cruze's engine will be DI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevy_Cruze#Chevrolet_Cruze Obviously the Cruze's engine will... […]
omnimoeish
First Reports of the Chevy Volt's Charge-Sustaining (Generator) Mode Operation November 20, 2009
The first two journalists' reports of what it's like to drive the Chevy Volt while in generator mode operation have been published. 1) New York... […]
admin
Florida giving $5000 rebate to convert Prius to plug-in November 20, 2009
- Probably Hymotion - $10,400 standard price - $5000 state rebate - $1000 additional federal incentives - $4,400 final cost. Hurry because their... […]
Texas
New York Times CSM story November 20, 2009
Link to the New York Times story of November 19, 2009 about a test ride of the Volt in charge sustaining... […]
srschrier
New video: Volt drive in Detroit November 19, 2009
November 19, 2009 Detroit Free Press story with video featuring a Volt drive with Andrew Farah in... […]
srschrier
New Video: Volt Corrosion Testing November 18, 2009
From GM VoltAge, the Volt's corrosion... […]
srschrier

Department of Energy Proposes Slashing Hydrogen Fuel Cell Budget

136 Responses to “Department of Energy Proposes Slashing Hydrogen Fuel Cell Budget”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts

Recent GM-Volt Forum Posts