Report Questions Bush Plan for Hydrogen-Fueled Cars

NY Times ^ | February 6, 2004 | MATTHEW L. WALD

[neverdem]

WASHINGTON, Feb. 5 — President Bush's plan for cars running on clean, efficient hydrogen fuel cells is decades away from commercial reality, according to a report by the National Academy of Sciences.

Promoting the technology in his State of the Union address a year ago, Mr. Bush said a hydrogen car might be available as the first vehicle for a child born in 2003. On Monday, the Energy Department included $318 million for both fuel cells and hydrogen production in its 2005 budget. "Hydrogen is the next frontier; a hydrogen economy is where the world is headed," said Spencer Abraham, the secretary of energy.

The Bush administration anticipates mass production of hydrogen cars by 2020. But the academy study, released Wednesday, said some of the Energy Department's goals were "unrealistically aggressive."

Fuel cells produce electricity by putting hydrogen through a chemical process, rather than burning, and their exhaust consists solely of water and heat. Some scientists think they have great promise, not only because they are clean, but also because the hydrogen can be produced from solar or wind power, thus reducing oil imports and the emission of gases that cause global warming.

But the least-expensive methods of hydrogen production use fuels like coal or natural gas, and those create pollution, experts say. Hydrogen is also difficult to ship and store. In addition, power from fuel cells is far more costly than the same amount of power from a gasoline engine.

"Real revolutions have to occur before this is going to become a large-scale reality," said one of the report's authors, Dr. Antonia V. Herzog, a staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "It very possibly could happen, but it's not a sure thing."

The report said battery-powered cars or hybrid cars, which use gasoline and electric motors, could turn out to be better choices. And over the next 25 years, the effects of hydrogen cars on oil imports and global-warming gas emissions "are likely to be minor," the report said.

A second pessimistic assessment came from Joseph J. Romm, the chief Energy Department official in charge of conservation and alternative energy in the Clinton administration. His book "The Hype About Hydrogen" will be published this spring.

"Fuel-cell cars will not be environmentally desirable for decades, because there are better uses for the fuels you can make the hydrogen out of," Mr. Romm said in a telephone interview.

Most hydrogen produced today is made from natural gas, he said, and using that gas to make electricity, and thus replace coal-based electric plants, would do more for the environment than using the gas to make hydrogen to replace gasoline. He said society would get more energy from a cubic foot of natural gas burned in a modern gas-powered electric plant than if it was converted to hydrogen.

Mr. Romm also said there is currently no way to deliver the hydrogen to vehicles. "People who want to build `hydrogen highways' and drive a hydrogen car in 10 or 15 years on a mass scale, are just kidding themselves," he said.

The Bush administration has shifted emphasis from a Clinton-era program to develop hybrid cars into a far more ambitious, long-term project to commercialize fuel cells.

Mr. Abraham, the energy secretary, said he had recently been host of a meeting of energy ministers from around the world, and they agreed that fuel cells offered promise for reducing pollution and dependence on imported energy. "I see it as not only a wise investment for America," Mr. Abraham said, "but really where the world is heading."

[neverdem]

Even the staff scientist from the Natural Resources Defense Council didn't sound too optimistic.

[smith288]

Well, I guess Bush should just sit on his hands and do nothing... Then and only then will the NY Times be pleased? riiiight...

[macrahanish #1]

Of course he can do no right in the eyes of the NYT.
He is a Republican, and is therefore evil.

[Cicero]

The leftists all LOVE hydrogen fuel cells. I've often pointed out that it's a stupid idea, unless you are willing to promote nuclear power plants to produce the hydrogen. It's not the "Bush plan" that's at fault. It's the whole idea of hydrogen fuel cells, because they are, basically, nothing but a means of storing power that has to be produced from some other source.

[KellyAdmirer]

No need to continue government promotion of hybrids, they are already here. This article makes it sound like we are abandoning a promising technology in favor of an iffy one. However, there is no reason for the government to continue to push a technology, hybrids, that is already in use. And, it must be obvious that on any technology like this, you can find doubters and naysays and pessimists, so this is a pretty meaningless article.

[neverdem]

PING

[neverdem]

so this is a pretty meaningless article.

Pardon me if I think otherwise, but I think GWB reached out to his enemies last year by making this an item in the State of the Union speech and committing his administration to this pipe dream.

Now the National Academy of Sciences generates this report, and the "paper or record" deigns to acknowledge this unwanted result, instead of its customary refusal to notice anything not in accord with its agenda, and you think this is meaningless? This is definitely some thing new for the NY Times.

[GeronL]

The government should not spend a penny on this crap. Let the private sector do it.

[neverdem]

On second thought, if Bush didn't make this commitment to feul cells, I think the Slimes would have ignored this story or called for more study.

[expatpat]

You've got it right. The Times would normally be for hydrogen vehicles, but now it is going to trash them since W supported them. (I agree with the negative view myself, tho')

[CedarDave]

A second pessimistic assessment came from Joseph J. Romm, the chief Energy Department official in charge of conservation and alternative energy in the Clinton administration. ... "Fuel-cell cars will not be environmentally desirable for decades, because there are better uses for the fuels you can make the hydrogen out of." Most hydrogen produced today is made from natural gas, he said, and using that gas to make electricity, and thus replace coal-based electric plants, would do more for the environment than using the gas to make hydrogen to replace gasoline.

Out here in New Mexico the former head of the DOE and Romm's boss, one Bill Richardson, is pulling out all the stops to prevent development of additional natural gas resources which could help prevent an energy crisis.

[SunkenCiv]

thanks!

A second pessimistic assessment came from Joseph J. Romm, the chief Energy Department official in charge of conservation and alternative energy in the Clinton administration. His book "The Hype About Hydrogen" will be published this spring...

Most hydrogen produced today is made from natural gas, he said, and using that gas to make electricity, and thus replace coal-based electric plants, would do more for the environment than using the gas to make hydrogen to replace gasoline. He said society would get more energy from a cubic foot of natural gas burned in a modern gas-powered electric plant than if it was converted to hydrogen.

Mr. Romm also said there is currently no way to deliver the hydrogen to vehicles. "People who want to build 'hydrogen highways' and drive a hydrogen car in 10 or 15 years on a mass scale, are just kidding themselves," he said.

The Bush administration has shifted emphasis from a Clinton-era program to develop hybrid cars into a far more ambitious, long-term project to commercialize fuel cells.

Romm's statement is just partisan spin, and shows just how far so-called Democrats will go. Clitnon's program was just window dressing. GWB's plan is more than the so-called environmental groups could have dreamed. And they once again showed their party above all devotion.

That said, hydrogen gas fuel cells are not the only kind of fuel cell, merely the first kind ever developed. Using hydrogen gas to fuel vehicles won't ever be practical, but a government dedication to the concept could result in an expensive new infrastructure and de facto government control -- like Soviet Five Year Plans. Liquid fuels are always more energy dense than gaseous fuels, regardless of the energy on the molecular level.

The left wing Mother Jones magazine excoriated the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle plan, claiming that the Great Invisible Texas Oil Conspiracy (my sarcastic term for a chimera) was going to make sure the hydrogen gas used came from the chemical cracking of liquid hydrocarbons and natural gas.

Duh. There's no source for hydrogen gas other than hydrocarbons. The huge advantage is, there's no need for a huge new infrastructure, because the hydrogen extraction could be done at existing fueling stations. Trying to build a huge number of photovoltaic cells and using the electricity to produce hydrogen from the electrolysis of water would be not only expensive, but expansive, and obviously would place the energy supply at huge risk from windstorms as well as terrorism.

[adiaireton8]

Biodiesel is much more practical, comparably priced (especially if mass-produced), clean, home-grown (so we're not sending our money to Saudi Arabia to help them sponsor all their charities), and helpful to American soybean farmers. I burn it in my TDI, and it works great; I averaged 53 mpg over the last 10,000 miles. If we are trying to reduce pollution and reduce dependency on foreign oil, biodiesel is the most practical alternative within reach.

[neverdem]

I had to guess what a TDI is. Is this link correct?

http://www.tdiclub.com/

If it is, then you're part of the problem of greenhouse gasbags. /sarcasm

[sitetest]

I'd been skeptical of Mr. Bush's proposals prior to this, but if the National Academy of Sciences thinks it can't be done...

...Then it'll likely arrive under budget and ahead of schedule.

[neverdem]

The electolysis of water wouldn't be that expensive if it was done with atomic energy. I had a recent discussion with a freeper who said that the disposal of the waste after enriched uranium was used as reactor fuel wouldn't be a problem if we didn't decide to prohibit its reprocessing into plutonium because of security concerns about diversion into clandestine weapon programs, although it could be then still be used as fuel for reactors, IIRC.

That still doesn't address the distribution problem and the hazardous nature of hydrogen.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[adiaireton8]

Yes, That is what a TDI is. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "greenhouse gasbag". But, interestingly, biodiesel should be attractive to both environmentalists and conservatives, though for different reasons. Biodiesel is produced from vegetable (usually soy) oil (and sometimes from animal fat), and so the carbon that you dump into your tank (and pump out your tailpipe) is all carbon from CO2 that has just recently been pulled out of the atmosphere by plants. Plus it burns much cleaner than petrodiesel. Plus diesel engines get better mileage than gasoline engines. Diesel hybrids can easily get 80 mpg. And hybrids are already here. Unlike hydrogen, switching to biodiesel does not require a whole new infrastructure. You can use it in existing diesel engines, and store it in existing diesel tanks.

Those are the pluses from the environmentalist side. From the conservative side, our nation's lack of self-sufficiency with respect to energy detracts from our national security, as does putting millions of dollars in the coffers of countries like Saudi Arabia, who use some of those dollars to fund charities who funnel the money to individuals who train terrorists to blow up our planes and buildings and are eagerly seeking to detonate nukes in our cities. So, biodiesel is an alternative that should be attractive to conservatives and liberals alike.

If you are a libertarian, you are going to say, "Let the market decide", in which case biodiesel will have a hard time competing with cheap imported crude. But if you think the government should play a role in our energy policy for reasons of national security (both economic and homeland defense) then you can be attracted to biodiesel as a conservative, even if there is not an environmentalist bone in your body.