Abraham Unveils Hydrogen-Car System

The Associated Press ^ | NOVEMBER 12, 2002 | DAVID GOODMAN

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

DEARBORN, Mich. (AP) — Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham released a ``roadmap'' Tuesday for putting fuel cells in the nation's cars and trucks, further committing the United States to a hydrogen-based transportation system.

``Creating the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle of the future presents complex technical challenges,'' he told business leaders at the Global Forum on Personal Transportation in the hometown of Ford Motor Co. ``Overcoming them will take an intensive and equally complex effort — but it will be worth it because the stakes really are so high.''

The Department of Energy and the nation's leading car and oil companies began work one year ago on a ``National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap,'' Abraham said.

Abraham was holding a closed-door meeting later Tuesday with the heads of the chief executives of some of the nation's leading businesses, including Ford, General Motors Corp. and Exxon Mobil Corp., as well as the leaders of American, Northwest and Southwest airlines.

Fuel cells use a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen to produce electricity. When pure hydrogen is used, the only tailpipe emission is water vapor.

The technology could have two big benefits: sharply cutting America's dependence on oil imports from an unstable Middle East and reducing the production of greenhouse gases widely blamed for global warming.

But fuel-cell technology is not expected to be widely available until the end of the decade at least.

Critics say the Bush administration and auto industry are using fuel cell research as a way to fend off calls for vehicles that get more miles per gallon.

``The whole business about fuel cell vehicles is just political theater,'' said analyst David Healy of Burnham Securities.

He said a much better way to reduce oil consumption is through gas-electric vehicles, some of which already are on the road.

``They're light years away from a commercial (fuel cell) vehicle,'' Healy said.

Abraham acknowledged that many hurdles remain.

One of the biggest challenges is finding a safe way to store hydrogen fuel in vehicles. Others are developing a hydrogen delivery network like the one that distributes gasoline to stations nationwide, and finding economical ways to produce hydrogen.

The initiative also is looking at other uses for hydrogen.

``The roadmap outlines the research, development, demonstration, codes and standards, and education efforts necessary to lead the nation to a clean and sustainable energy future,'' the Energy Department said.

Abraham said it is vital for America to abandon its reliance on oil and other fossil fuels.

``Whether it is fusion, a hydrogen economy, or ideas that we have not yet explored, I believe we need to leapfrog the status quo and prepare for a future that under any scenario requires a revolution in how we produce, deliver and use energy,'' he said.

In January, the Bush administration abandoned a Clinton-era effort to produce highly fuel-efficient gasoline-powered vehicles. In its place, the administration announced a joint effort with automakers to promote hydrogen fuel cell powered cars and trucks,

In May, General Motors displayed a pickup truck that it said was the world's first drivable fuel cell vehicle that extracts hydrogen from gasoline to produce electricity.

[Willie Green]

My title : "Spence proves he's a fathead doofus"

Hydrogen is NOT a fuel.
It will ALWAYS require more energy from another source to produce than what can be obtained by burning it.
(Unless, of course, fusion nuclear reactors ever become a reality)

---

U.S. Petroleum & Crude Oil Overview
(thousand barrels per day)

	1960	1965	1970	1975	1980	1985	1990	1995	2000
U.S. Crude Oil Production	7,035	7,804	9,637	8,375	8,597	8,971	7,355	6,560	5,834
U.S. Petroleum Imports	1,815	2,468	3,419	6,056	6,909	5,067	8,018	8,835	11,093
Total	8,850	10,272	13,056	14,431	15,506	14,038	15,373	15,395	16,927
Imports as % of Total	20.5	24.0	26.2	42.0	44.6	36.1	52.2	57.4	65.5

High-speed rail as an alternative mode of transportation in the U.S. is long overdue. We are reaching the point of diminishing returns as we expand our 4-lane interstates to 6, 8 or (gasp!!!) 10 lanes. And even costly airport expansions make little sense when (prior to 9/11) the air corridors themselves are over-congested.

High-speed rail and maglev offer the perfect alternative to augment & supplement our highway and air transportation infrastructure. For regional trips between 100 and 550 miles, it is faster than automobile and not that much slower than air. Yet offers the potential to alleviate both congested highways and air corridors!

In light of current economic conditions, construction of this vital transportation infrastructure should be accelerated.

[RightWhale]

Agreed! Hydrogen will never be a primary energy source on this planet.

[anobjectivist]

Building High-speed rail should wait until companies have a profit motive for making them.

[Willie Green]

Just like IKE waited to construct the Interstate Highway system?

[Seruzawa]

The only efficient way to produce hydrogen is by electrolysis, is it not? So won't we have to burn a whole heck of a lot more oil to generate the hydrogen to then power the cars? So, like, what will we have gained?

[pabianice]

[Willie Green]

The only efficient way to produce hydrogen is by electrolysis, is it not?

Well, I suppose you could choose to pour boatloads of concentrated acid on some kind of metal... but that has quite a few drawbacks to it.

So won't we have to burn a whole heck of a lot more oil to generate the hydrogen to then power the cars?

Correcto-mundo...
Or coal, nuclear, hydro dams, windmills...
However you want to generate electricity, we'd have to build a helluva lot more of.

So, like, what will we have gained?

Not a blasted thing. Only additional inefficiency and energy loss by converting energy to yet another storage medium - hydrogen. Then additional losses when hydrogen is burned and converted back to mechanical energy. (Not to mention the losses due to leakage when hydrogen is in gaseous form. That blasted tiny little molecule can leak through just about anything like a sieve. It just scoots right between the other molecules like they're not even there, doesn't even need a 'crack".)

If you're going to generate electricity, you might as well use it to directly power mass-transportation systems. Much less loss than going through the inefficient gyrations of converting to hydrogen, then back again.

[My2Cents]

LOL..."Oh, the humanity!"...They should call the first hydrogen-powered car "The Hindenberg."

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[rmlew]

Electric cars don't perform well.
Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cells do. We need more nukes to make hydrogen. As a New Yorker, I'm all for hydrogen cars.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...If you're going to generate electricity, you might as well use it to directly power mass-transportation systems. Much less loss than going through the inefficient gyrations of converting to hydrogen, then back again..."

BZZZZT! I'm sorry, that's the wrong answer, Mr. Green, but thanks for playing anyway. Proponents of "Mass Transit" systems, especially those whose existance depend upon government subsidies conveniently leave out the "mass" in the "transit". Sure, if you calculate the passenger-miles efficiency of light electric rail or buses, you get GREAT numbers, assuming that the coaches ACTUALLY HAVE PEOPLE IN THEM. In reality, you have lot's of empty, or nearly empty cars rattling about, with the electic (or diesel) bill being picked up by John Q. Taxpayer.

One of the big arguments against solar energy generation is that "It only works during the day, duh." Imagine for one moment an enormous "solar farm" in otherwise inhospitable land. You divert water in, and during the day, solar generated electricity splits water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. You store the gasses in tanks for night-time transfer and delivery, and repeat the process each day. The Hydrogen becomes a convenient way to "store" the collected solar power for use at any later time. (or hydro-electric or nuclear or any other "clean" source)

Now in this scenario, hydrogen could be delivered to paying customers that would use it when someone was actually going somewhere. Energy would not be used to push empty coaches around because Senator Blowhard directed funds into his state.

Before you tell me about how crowded the subways of New York are, or how full the Amtrack Eastern Corridor is, I will come back with the thousands of wasted milage Amtrack piles up on useless, but politically propped up passenger runs, or point out the hopelessly empty buses here in the Metro Detroit area. "Mass Transit" is a VERY LOCALIZED thing, and not generally suited as a one size fits all solution for our very mobile society.

[Willie Green]

Hydrogen fuel cells are just a fancy battery for electric cars.

[Willie Green]

BZZZZT! I'm sorry, that's the wrong answer, Mr. Green, but thanks for playing anyway.

Guess again, Ace.

I only advocate light-rail, high-speed rail and Maglev for those densely populated corridors and urban areas where ridership would make their use sensible.
This, of course, would enhance petroleum availability in more sparsely populated regions of the country.
And before we even consider such a marginal source of vehicle propulsion like hydrogen, we haven't even begun to discuss gassification of our vast reserves of coal, shale-oil, tar sands, etc. etc. etc.

The Federal Railway Administration has a pretty decent map showing where the initial corridors for Maglev and high-speed rail would be:

What is High Speed Ground Transportation?

High-speed ground transportation (HSGT)-- a family of technologies ranging from upgraded existing railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles-- is a passenger transportation option that can best link cities lying about 100-500 miles apart. Common in Europe ( The European Railway Server) and Japan (Japan Railways),HSGT in the United States already exists in the Northeast Corridor (Amtrak) between New York and Washington, D.C. and will soon serve travelers between New York and Boston. 

HSGT is self-guided intercity passenger ground transportation that is time competitive with air and/or auto on a door-to-door basis for trips in the approximate range of 100 to 500 miles. This is market-based, not a speed based definition. It recognizes that the opportunities and requirements for HSGT differ markedly among different pairs of cities. High-speed ground transportation (HSGT) is a family of technologies ranging from upgraded steel-wheel-on-rail railroads to magnetically levitated vehicles.

The Federal Railroad Administration has designated a variety of high density transportation corridors within our nation for development of HSGT:

.

For more information, please visit the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA’s) High Speed Ground Transportation Website

[Senator Pardek]

require more energy from another source to produce han what can be obtained by burning it."

This is similar to the "recycling craze". Reality: RECYCLE = POLLUTION.

I gotta laugh when I see that gigantic recycling truck go down my street spewing out fumes with a big hairy arm sticking out the window dropping a McDonald's Big Mac wrapper to the ground (and that's just the first phase of pollution...)

[Willie Green]

Ya gotta admit, landfills are getting to be a headache.
But I doubt anybody, including you, would want to return to the days of the unregulated town dump.
Good grief, our cities are starting to look too much like Tijuana and Mexico City as it is.
Who the heck wants garbage piling up higher than the skyscrapers?
With illegal immigrants scrambling all over them looking for a bite to eat?

[Senator Pardek]

This is a lengthy article - but it destroys the Cult Of Recycling (it's written by a NYT staff writer, to boot) - Recycling Is Garbage

[Stefan Stackhouse]

Actually, I believe that having the FedGov involved in high-speed rail is the kiss of death. Having the FedGov involved means that there is going to be political pressure from 535 congresscritters to make sure that each and every state and district gets their little slice of the pie, and that won't work. The best thing that the FedGov could do would be to get out of the way and let the states that have two or more major cities within their own borders first build high-speed rail networks internally. Likely candidates: California, Texas, Florida, Ohio, New York, N.J., Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Missouri, and maybe Tennessee, Georgia, and Virginia. Once these initial networks are in place, then the FedGov can use its interstate commerce regulation powers to facilitate linking these networks up, one set at a time. Before then, the only thing the FedGov should do is establish a uniform national technology standard, so it will be feasible to interconnect some of these systems.

[Rebel_Ace]

Yes, Mr. Green, you have posted this blurb on HSGT and graphic many times here on FR, and I have seen it often.

If the market potential was so great, several for profit companies would be chomping at the bit to start up service in those areas. Here is where things break down:

For any trip under 100 miles, it is usually far more convenient to take your own vehicle. You can leave and arrive and any time you choose, and while you are away on your trip, you have personal transportation at your disposal.

If you are going to go over about 200 miles, you are going to fly, because a 500 MPH plane beats a 200 MPH train in the long haul, and it is easier to change the routes of planes to accomodate shifting traffic patterns efficiently than it is to lay new miles of track, so there will ALWAYS be more choices available to "fly" than to "ride the rails".

Now, for those trips in that 100+ to 200- mile range, if the traffic patterns are so predictable, Mr. Green, then by all means, form a corporation, solicit venture capital, and go make yourself and your shareholders a million dollars. I would wish you the best in your venture, and I would even pay to ride your train once for a lark.

However, you get the feds involved, and before you know it, economic considerations are sidelined for congressional pork-barreling, and you end up with the same mess we have with Amtrack.

[Stefan Stackhouse]

I have recently read that Iceland plans to convert their island over entirely to hydrogen-fueld vehicles over the next 25 years. Maybe that makes a certain amount of sense for them. They are isolated, and don't need to worry about driving their vehicles in non-hydrogen-economy areas. They don't have long distances to drive. Also, they have a lot of geothermal energy available, and perhaps it does make sense for them to use some of that to generate hydrogen for fuel for their vehicles. There may be a few more places on earth that will also be early adopters -- probably also islands like New Zealand, and Japan will probably be the first major country to go hydrogen. Given our huge driving distances and huge installed base of gasoline/diesel fueled vehicles, the US will probably be one of the LAST countries to move to a hydrogen economy -- if we ever do at all. It may be that by the time we get to that point, there will be a "Mr. Fusion" unit ready to install on every vehicle in the country, making hydrogen obsolete.

[Willie Green]

If the market potential was so great, several for profit companies would be chomping at the bit to start up service in those areas.

As a matter of fact, there are.
Transrapid International is one.
American Maglev Inc. is another.

I can't help it if you insist on a naively simplistic perspective as to how the transportation infrastructure market in our nation works.