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.

[Rebel_Ace]

Well, the "Mr. Fusion" units would run on Hydrogen, since that is what is being "fused", but that point aside...

Gasoline powered cars are very practical and convenient. Gasoline stores a very good energy "bang" in a form that is reasonably safe to handle and transport. Today's cars and trucks pollute very little when compared to cars of yesteryear. I don't dispute any of this, and I love my cars, like any good American! ;-)

But, oil is such a wonderful resource, capable of producing so many things, that I think it is an awful WASTE simply to burn it.

Imagine using mahogony as firewood. EGAD! Mahogony should be fine furniture, not heat for the evening. In the same vein, petroleum should be used to make the reusable lubricants, polymers and other things that have a longer use life than simple fuel for burning.

Other methods of energy storage will be developed and adopted over time because people will be willing to pay for them.

[Willie Green]

I'm sorry to hear that Iceland has fallen victim to eco-terrorist hysteria.
Let's pray that they discover and correct their error before they're forced to revert back to whale oil.

[Rebel_Ace]

Here is some info taken from your souce as posted from American Maglev Technology, Inc.

"...As a result, he says, his system can be built for $15 million to $20 million a mile, compared with his competitors' $40 million to $100 million a mile..."

So, a mere 200 miles of Maglev trackage is going to cost, by their LOWEST figures, around 3 BILLION dollars (2 space shuttles). That's just to get the track mind you, we are not discussing operating costs. At the higher figures, cited by Lockheed Martin, working under the auspices of your beloved Federal Railroad Administration, the cost could well be 10 BILLION dollars (6 space shuttles, more than the current US Fleet).

Now, when demographics and traffic patterns change, and this 200 mile route is not as popular, well, that line remains abandoned and unused, and another 3 Billion is spent connecting another corridor.

Compare that to an airline where planes are simply dispatched from another airport, or more or fewer planes are routed as needed. Now, tell me again who is "naive" and "simplistic"?

[Willie Green]

Now, when demographics and traffic patterns change, and this 200 mile route is not as popular,

Major American metropolitan areas rarely change location or disappear into a ghost town.
You don't see too many segments of Interstate Highway abandoned due to lack of use, do you?

Compare that to an airline where planes are simply dispatched from another airport,

Over a 200 mile distance? Easy.
Planes can't economicly increase ridership AND passenger convenience by make quick 3~4 minute stops at destinations along the way, every 30~45 miles or so, depending on location.

Care to compare the construction costs you cited to that of new highways?

[flamingbug]

The Hindenburn caught fire due to the copper-based paint on the exterior. Not a good idea to coat the thin veneer of the craft with something that conducts electricity. I think mapping out how we could effectively implement hydrogen as a means of transportation only makes sense.

[Carry_Okie]

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.

This is a scam intended to enrich BP and other major oil and gas companies who know full well that this idea is a thermodynamic loser. Hybrid cars are every bit as fuel efficient and cost far less to produce. Instead of being dependent upon oil, with fuel cells we'll be dependent upon oil, platinum, rare earth minerals, and copper nearly all of which are off-limits to production in the US, being tied up in Bubba's handy dandy environmental EOs.

[Willie Green]

Oh, and Maglev is far safer and more reliable than planes in nasty weather.
No worry about delays or being grounded due to fog, rain, sleet, snow, etc. etc.
It just glides along its elevated guideway right through that slop just like it wasn't even there, no problemo.
And no worries about getting splattered all over the countryside like Senator Wellstone and his family. (RIP)
In fact, the dedicated right-of-way of the elevated guideway is much safer than conventional rail. No railroad crossings for motorists or school buses to get stuck on when the train approaches. It's up overhead where it won't run into anything.

[TopQuark]

thermodynamic loser

More of path-breaking science?

[Republic of Texas]

Although the colorful charts and graphs are impressive, I can rebut that argument in two words. Am Trak

[Poohbah]

It will ALWAYS require more energy from another source to produce than what can be obtained by burning it.

Yup. That's why you use nuclear power plants to crack it out of ordinary water.

[Rebel_Ace]

You miss the entire point of airline travel. Let me be more basic and direct:

Let's say I spend 10 BILLION dollars on a fancy new airport near a large city. As soon as I have done that I AM CONNECTED TO EVERY OTHER AIRPORT. Bingo, I'm done. If in the decade of the 2010's, I have lots of traffic coming into my new airport from out west, let's say, then more planes will be routed to my airport from L.A.X. than say, LaGuardia. Then let's say a population or economic shift sends more traffic my way from the east, planes from other major destinations are re-routed without spending more money to lay "plane tracks".

Now, if I spend 10 BILLION dollars to connect Chicago and Detroit with Maglev trains, that's ALL I GET. That investment does not help with Boston to Detroit traffic, or Boston to Chicago traffic, or New York to Chicago, etc, etc.

"...Planes can't economicly increase ridership AND passenger convenience by make quick 3~4 minute stops at destinations along the way, every 30~45 miles or so, depending on location..."

Laughing Out Loud! You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Green. A train CANNOT speed up to 200 MPH, then stop on a dime to pick up / drop off passengers at stations along the way, and STILL be considered HSGT! A train that makes frequent stops along its route is called a "local", and the effective speed is LOW. A train that essentially runs non-stop between major destinations is called an "express", and only an "express" train would be able to compete favorably for time spent travelling to that of an airplane. People look at transportation SCHEDULES when making travel decisions. I bet very few people care how fast a plane is capable of going, they just look at arrival and departure times. The same would be true of a train. People measure such travel in TIME, not MILES, so if a train ride would take them 4 hours, and a plane ride only 2, the plane would prove more popular.

"...Care to compare the construction costs you cited to that of new highways?..."

Stay focused, Willie. You were trying to sell HSGT as an alternative to Air Ridership. I already stipulated that for 200+ mile trips, people were going to FLY.

[Willie Green]

I can rebut that argument in two words. Am Trak

If you think Amtrak is two words, it's illustrative of your understanding of the issue.
I'd suggest doing a little more research.

[Republic of Texas]

I'm sorry, I forgot the tag for the sarcasm impaired, here just for you genius, /sarcasm.

[realpatriot71]

While hydrogen is not a viable economic, nor energetic option at this time, I don't see why research is a bad idea. There may come a day, when we could have to look at hydrogen as an real option. It all depends on the oil reserves.

[Willie Green]

You were trying to sell HSGT as an alternative to Air Ridership.

You're the one who's unfocused, Ace.

I compared it to BOTH air AND highway travel for "regional trips between 100 and 550 miles" right off the bat in reply #1.

[Willie Green]

I'm sorry, I forgot the tag for the sarcasm impaired, here just for you genius, /sarcasm.

The sarcasm was understood.
As was your misinformed reference to Amtrak.
My reply to you was not sarcastic.
Merely dismissive of its irrelevance.

[Republic of Texas]

A M T R A K = F A I L U R E.

End of story.

[Republic of Texas]

Get back to me when Amtrak only loses a BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

Your record for being wrong is so stunning, I'm happy to be on the other side of an issue from you anyday. The fact that you wouldn't know humor if you stepped in it is just icing.

[Rebel_Ace]

"...no worries about getting splattered all over the countryside like Senator Wellstone ..."

Rule Number 1:
Whenever you are in a vehicle of any sort travelling 200 MPH, there is ALWAYS the danger of being splattered all over the countryside.

"...No worry about delays or being grounded due to fog, rain, sleet, snow, etc. etc. It just glides along its elevated guideway right through that slop just like it wasn't even there, no problemo..."

Mr. Green, you need to read the material at the sites you directed me to. From the sites you posted, the engineers say that the Maglev train "floats" about 1/4 inch above the track. Now, maybe you hail from some place like Arizona, but here in Deee-Troit, Meeeeeshigan we wake up and scrape more than 1/4 inch of ice and crusty snow off our windsheilds in the morning. Have you ever seen the massive snow removal equipment used by the railroads for conventional tracks? This is for trains that can tolerate and crush ice and snow to a certain degree. Can you imagine the equipment required to keep the rails in the surgically clean state needed for Maglev operations? Can you imagine what a simple scattering of scrap ferrous material would do to a train? YEE-OUCH!

"...the dedicated right-of-way of the elevated guideway ... It's up overhead..."

Rule Number 2:
200 MPH vehicle of any sort "up overhead" (especially one run by Gov't Employees) eventually equals "splattered all over the countryside".

[Republic of Texas]

Don't get funny with pronunciations. Willie Green the Grammar King will be on you like a chicken on a junebug.

(just for you Willie) /sarcasm