[Isara]

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.

That's what I thought. "There are no hydrogen wells. We can dig up petroleum, but hydrogen has to be created from, say, seawater. And that requires a lot of energy."

[AppyPappy]

The point is to move us away from oil as a vehicle fuel. We can get power from coal, solar, wind or nuclear. All of these are home grown.

In goes a hydrogen powerplant into a Ford Explorer at Virginia Tech

[Thud]

Hydrogen fuel is merely a means of distributing energy from elsewhere.

[Diogenesis]

In concert with the State Dept., the Commerce Dept which runs the Patent Office gave away
all US inventors' secrets (including all US patent applications) on energy to China, but under the corrupt officials
and traitors who run the Patent Office, all energy related patents involving new sources remain ungranted, and
the researchers under attack despite the US Constitution permitting such patents.

President Bush: How about an iota of accountability.
Please remove Q. Todd Dickenson and other corrupt officials at the Patent Office and State Dept. TODAY.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

"We can dig up petroleum, but hydrogen has to be created from, say, seawater. And that requires a lot of energy."

And that energy comes from...

PETROLEUM!!!!

[Sgt_Schultze]

...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...

Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

[Wonder Warthog]

"That's what I thought. "There are no hydrogen wells. We can dig up petroleum, but hydrogen has to be created from, say, seawater. And that requires a lot of energy."

Actually, we can "dig up" hydrogen, as well. Coal gasification very nicely produces large quantities of it (the final product syngas is pretty much carbon monoxide and hydrogen). Separate them, burn the carbon monoxide in gas turbines to produce electricity at the mine-site and for transmission locally, and send the hydrogen off by pipeline to wherever it is needed. We have MORE coal reserves in the US than Saudi Arabia has oil.

[rellimpank]

--biggest drawback--the laws of thermodynamics, which even the Democrats can't break--

[WFTR]

How much research money did the government spend so that Henry Ford would be able to develop the automobile?

WFTR
Bill

[VMI70]

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.

...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.

[steve-b]

Yes, if 1)practical storage technologies are developed and 2)peasant superstitions about all think "nucular" are overcome so that a clean domestic source for the necessary energy input can be developed.

The latter will be the more difficult.

[big bad easter bunny]

They should not fund research, it will just flow down a dark hole and amount to very little. Instead they should propose certain goals and offer a prize of 1 billion dollars to the first company that achieves the criteria.

[Petronski]

No.

[mrsmith]

Couple of pertinent facts in an AP story today.

".... 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..."

[Sloth]

Using the cheapest process, it costs $3,000 to make enough hydrogen to generate one kilowatt.

Quote makes no sense. 1 kW is a measure of power, not energy. It may well be 4X as expensive as gas generators, but $3000 generates 1 kW for how long? 7 seconds? 83 years? I hate journalists.

[1Old Pro]

In a word, NO.

[boris]

"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."

The idiot who wrote this hasn't a clue as to the difference between power and energy.

You can develop one kilowatt for a penny with either fuel. It just won't be for very long.

A kilowatt is a unit of power; a kilowatt-hour is a unit of energy. He means (if he means anything at all) to claim it cost $3K per kilowatt-hour, etc.

--Boris

[hopespringseternal]

Despite these problems, hydrogen has replaced wind and solar as the preferred alternative to oil among the scientifically illiterate.

[RightWhale]

The problem with hydrogen is there are no hydrogen wells

Most of it will come from natural gas.