Posted on 02/07/2003 7:31:16 AM PST by Isara
President Bush, a former Texas oilman, is not exactly the environmentalists' favorite eco-warrior. Even so, he has put himself at the forefront of one of their crusades.
On Thursday, Bush called on Congress to approve $1.2 billion in research funding for hydrogen-fueled cars.
"I'm going to work with the Congress to move this nation forward on hydrogen fuel cell technologies," he said, repeating a proposal in last week's State of the Union address. "It is in our national interest that we do so."
Bush is proposing other hydrogen-related projects too. All told, he wants to spend $1.7 billion on research over five years.
Hydrogen promises a clean, renewable energy source that would end the need for foreign oil. But it has the same drawbacks as wind and solar: It has never proved itself efficient or practical.
Private industry has already made the first hydrogen cars, but the cost remains huge.
Absent a major breakthrough or government mandate, Americans will not be driving them for a long time.
"The problem with hydrogen is there are no hydrogen wells," said Sallie Baliunas, a scientist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "We can dig up petroleum, but hydrogen has to be created from, say, seawater. And that requires a lot of energy."
How Hydrogen Works
Hydrogen is an abundant natural element. It can be extracted through chemical processes from several sources, including water.
Hydrogen gas would then be stored in compressed form in a battery-like device called a fuel cell. When mixed with oxygen - an air filter would do it - the cell creates an electric charge. The only exhaust is water vapor.
For all of the benefits of hydrogen, there are major drawbacks. The main one is that it requires energy to extract it in the first place.
The most common method (called "steam reformation") mixes natural gas and water with a catalyst to produce hydrogen. Greenhouse gasses are a byproduct.
The process also requires heat, which must come from another energy source.
Solar or wind could be used, but vast tracts of land for windmills or solar panels would be needed.
The Cost Problem
Using the cheapest process, it costs $3,000 to make enough hydrogen to generate one kilowatt. That's four times what it costs a gas-powered generator to make the same amount of power.
"I can only say the expense is enormous," Shinichi Yamaguchi, a Toyota scientist, told the National Journal about his company's hydrogen-powered vehicles.
Baliunas is skeptical hydrogen can ever be made practical in a market-based economy.
"It takes energy, and you lose energy in the process, so it is never going to be worthwhile," she said. "That is just the laws of physics."
Others are more optimistic, but no one expects hydrogen cars for at least another decade or two.
A related problem is the logistics of hydrogen fuel cells.
There's no efficient way yet to make them widely available. Exactly how it would be done is a mystery even to the experts.
Oil companies are already looking into refitting their filling stations to provide hydrogen, but the infrastructure would have to be completely rebuilt. Only four stations exist now.
Despite these problems, hydrogen has replaced wind and solar as the preferred alternative to oil.
An alliance of environmentalists, corporations and state governors has emerged calling for federal subsidies to boost research.
Bush's remarks were seen as a bone for that group.
Many companies already have advanced hydrogen-fuel programs. General Motors () alone has 300 people devoted to it. Most would love a federal boost.
There's even a Hydrogen Infrastructure Investment Roundtable.
"We're interested in supplying energy to consumers, whether it be gasoline, heating oil, jet fuel or hydrogen," said John Felmy, chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute, a roundtable participant.
The greens are also pushing hydrogen. They'd like to see internal combustion engines replaced with pollution-free hydrogen vehicles.
California Gov. Gray Davis upped the ante last year. He pushed through a law mandating that only low-emissions cars could be sold in the state by 2009.
California is the nation's largest car market. Other states are weighing similar rules.
Hydrogen is being pushed abroad as well. The European Union recently announced a $2 billion fuel cell research program.
A Job For Big Gov't?
Jeremy Rifkin, author of "The Hydrogen Economy" and an adviser to the EU project, says the U.S. needs a similar approach.
"Assistance for industry, tax credits, research and development, investment opportunities: that's what is really called for," he said. "To make this real, there needs to be the same kind of public-private partnership that Europe has."
The $1.2 billion Bush has proposed isn't nearly enough, Rifkin says.
But he expects more funding. Once started, the pressure to expand U.S. research will ratchet up.
"Bush has opened the door a slight bit. What you're going to see right now is the industry pushing that door wide open," he said. "There is going to be tremendous pressure on Bush now to go much further than he is suggesting."
That's likely, says Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
But the rush to develop hydrogen could crowd out other research.
"Everyone will now focus on hydrogen fuel cells because that is where the research money is going to go," he said. "Other technologies that might be even cleaner or more readily useful will see their research funding dry up."
Burnett says it would be better to let the companies do the research independently.
"Eventually the markets will demand this technology, if it is the best technology," he said. "I don't think it is necessary for the government to subsidize it."
But that takes energy as well. Any kind of separation process will, and that means losses, more or less. I'm not saying its impractical and may very well end up being a good way to beef up our domestic supply of hydrocarbon products and/or viable substitutes, but its still going to take a reliable and robust supply of primary energy.
One thing about hydrogen-powered vehicles that people often gloss over is the energy density factor. You just need more of the material on a volume/weight basis to get an equivalent amount of power compared with gasoline-powered ICs. That means pressurized tanks if you stick with gaseous forms, or specialty-engineered cryotanks for liquified H2, which will have its own issues. So to go the same number of miles you either have larger on-board storage, or you have to "gas up" more frequently. Or am I missing something?
A good energy balance analysis of the H2 vehicle would be helpful, especially if liquified H2 is envisioned. Not only do you use energy to make the H2, but you use energy to liquify it. Losses during processing steps like these tend to add up.
Coal, wind, solar and nuclear.
Here at Tech, the cars we convert must meet the same standards as gasoline engines or they lose the competition.
WFTR
Bill
Bush's remarks were seen as a bone for that group.
...On Thursday, Bush called on Congress to approve $1.2 billion in research funding for hydrogen-fueled cars. All told, he wants to spend $1.7 billion on research over five years.
Hell of an expensive bone, not as bad as the $15,000,000,000.00 aids boondoggle, but who's counting?
A Job For Big Gov't?
Jeremy Rifkin, author of "The Hydrogen Economy" and an adviser to the EU project, says the U.S. needs a similar approach. "Assistance for industry, tax credits, research and development, investment opportunities: that's what is really called for," he said. "To make this real, there needs to be the same kind of public-private partnership that Europe has."
There is no such thing as "private" business in Europe anymore except for the corner grocery store, maybe.
The $1.2 billion Bush has proposed isn't nearly enough, Rifkin says.
Rifkin is an idiot and always has been. Read his stuff and watch him on TV. He is certifiable.
Burnett says it would be better to let the companies do the research independently.
Oh come on. The auto companies did the research and testing on the 50 mpg car, and they managed to waste billions before declaring that it was not feasible. It's funny how that happens when the subsidies run out.
(Burnett continuing): "Eventually the markets will demand this technology, if it is the best technology," he said. "I don't think it is necessary for the government to subsidize it."
Now he is getting it right, but he really looks bad contradicting himself.
Same standards..in what way? Speed, driving distance,fuel consumption? Convert how? Into a totally hydrogen vehicle?
The latter will be the more difficult.
All the "primary energy" necessary to drive the process comes from the energy contained in the coal itself.
For vehicular usage, I actually prefer methanol, which is far more flexible than hydrogen (i.e. it can be used in fuel cells AND be burned in existing internal-combustion engines). The storage problems are also much reduced. Methanol can also be produced from that carbon-monoxide/hydrogen gas that is coal syngas.
Sorry, AppyPappy,
Despite the issue of oil being home grown as well, the problems with the sources mentioned make for beating a strawman. Coal is massively dirty and much more of a polluter than petroleum; to "scrub" it clean reduces any economic benefit to nil. The expense of covering Nevada with solar panels is overwhelmingly prohibitive and then you could only provide for the energy of, say, San Franscico. Finally, did you say Nuclear? Whoa! Try to get that one past the envirowhackos. Anyone, even a Democrat, seriously proposing a new atomic power plant in this country would be lynched, then tarred & feathered, by the press and the informed college professors.
Still, hydrogen power sounds, like such a good idea...
Converting the US economy to hydrogen would take trillions of dollars compared to simply building coal gasification plants that would produce equivalent fuel grade gasoline, kerosene, and diesel.
Not sure what you mean by this??
Is it dangerous to burn something when H2 is around? Like Hindenburg.
No more dangerous (actually less dangerous) than to burn something when gasoline vapors are around. As to the Hindenberg, it turns out that the source of the original fire was NOT the lift gas hydrogen, but apparently a lightening strike that ignited the aluminum-doped painted fabric that comprised the external skin of the dirigible. It turns out that, once ignited, that paint mixture was more-or-less like solid rocket fuel. If you look at the pictures of the burning Hindenberg, you will see clouds of dense black smoke--hydrogen burns with an almost colorless and smokeless flame. Of course, the burning skin "did" eventually rupture the hydrogen cells and ignite the hydrogen.
This is only true if you "burn" the coal in an open combustion cycle. Gasification solves all those problems in one swell foop. No scrubbers AT ALL needed. The "nasties" get carried away in the solid slag from the gasification process.
Ultimately, the problem is that not all of the true price of petroleum shows up at the pump. For instance, if we used some other substance to generate and/or store energy, the Arabs would have the same ability to harm us or interfere with our politics as so many sub-saharan Africans (for those keeping score at home, that would be "zilch").
Already being worked on. Conversion efficiency is not real great at the current stage of research.
".... Bush promoted his request for $1.2 billion in federal money over five years for hydrogen fuel cell research. The money is aimed at finding ways to get the fuel to where it can be used. Without fueling stations, nobody will want to buy the cars even when they land in showrooms a decade or more from now.
"What we do today can make a tremendous difference for the future of America," Bush said.
Of the money he proposed, $720 million would represent additional spending beyond what is already planned for fuel cell research..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.