Hydrogen Car Hype

Wall St Journal ^ | 1-30-03

[jayef]

More on Ballard

http://money.cnn.com/services/tickerheadlines/bw/230292622.htm

[theFIRMbss]

>Hydrogen Car Hype

Why not simply make
a super clean gas engine
that need only be

strong enough to crank
a generator, which runs
electric motors?

[hopespringseternal]

The problem with simply forcing government entities to buy fuel cells is that fuel cells are the hair on the tail of the elephant.

The elephant is that, as you say, the anti-nuke weenies have by unintended consequences married the price of electricity to oil.

To make the transition to a hydrogen economy, the enabling scenario is nuclear energy production at a (small) fraction of the cost of fossil energy production.

[jayef]

You need to do some reasearch. Nobody is talking about liquid hydrogen here. That is not how this stuff works.

[mommybain]

GO HOKIES!!!

[NittanyLion]

You need to do some reasearch. Nobody is talking about liquid hydrogen here. That is not how this stuff works.

To the best of my knowledge you can store the stuff three ways: compress it, liquify it, or allow another material to absorb it. It would appear the only safe way to carry hydrogen in a car is the third - but from what I've read scientists can't even agree on whether that's a possibility.

[jriemer]

Nittany,

Bush is supporting H2 car research at a level that is currently significantly greater than is being done already in the private sector. The automobile and other industries have been angling away from gasoline and diesel in their research for years but the recent economy has forced them to slash their R&D budgets. This proposal will vastly jump start and sustain their research. What happens next is up to the "invisible hand" of the free market.

The private sector will do all the "heavy lifting" of research, testing, implementation, manufacture, sales and support of actual hydrogen-powered products. Do you actually think Bush would make a sweeping proposal where our hydrogen future is run out of the DOE like some communist command-economy? Meanwhile, the whole thing still has to compete against the gasoline and diesel "installed base" in order to survive. That's capitalistic risk taking from the point of view of government.

You insult the man's intelligence and vision.

jriemer

[hopespringseternal]

Why not simply make a super clean gas engine that need only be strong enough to crank a generator, which runs electric motors?

TANSTAAFL. To get identical performance, the gas engine would need to be larger than the non-hybrid. The ironic thing is, this is the sort of thinking driving the scientifically illiterate hydrogen/electric cheerleaders.

The hybrids currently available still need expensive batteries and just use the (small) gas engine to augment the cruising range. It is just using a little bit of a good idea (gas engine) to make a bad idea (batteries) not quite as bad.

[GirlShortstop]

It amazes me that folks constantly think government somehow knows better than market forces.   Agreed.

I'd submit to you however that leadership and redirection (a jump start) may play an important part in moving America forward; a culture shift, if you will.   The x42 legacy in my mind is the "self-absorbed, deceitful, depends on your definition of is, is, back stabbing, sue somebody, it's not my fault!, hedonistic" mood that permeates and lingers over our society like a ghastly fart.  </rant off>   Leadership from W is a welcome match!    jmo   FReegards.

[jayef]

Yes, that is my understanding as well. There is some type of catalytic reaction taking place. While it's true that there isn't a lot of agreement on how to do it, the fact is that it is being done. That the US Government wants to spend tax dollars helping the process could be a good thing. I share some concerns expressed earlier about subsidizing the wrong technology at the expense of one that the market would prefer, but that is the way it works now anyway. It's a lesser of evils thing, I guess.

[GingisK]

Nobody is talking about liquid hydrogen here.

Bush was indeed talking about the consumption of free hydrogen in fuel cells. This is the only reaction whose only byproduct is water. This means they are talking about liquid hydrogen. Hydrogen is not stored or shipped as a gas, it is stored and shipped as a liquid. Fuel cells have been made to work on propane and butane, but these are fossil fuels. There is carbon left to dispose of after those reactions.

On the other hand, fuel cells also need oxygen. This is also stored and shipped as a liquid. This makes the "other" substance cryogenic as well. Oh yeah, oxygen can be taken from the atmosphere using refrigeration. Hydrogen cannot be "manufactured" this way.

Hydrogen peroxide passed over platinum gauze produces steam, capable of driving turbines. This was used in torpedos in WWII, as well as in the turbo pumps of many rocket motors. Fuel cells are also a catalytic process.

The research appears to be your problem.

[alwaysconservative]

I totally agree with your post that this is the political equivalent of a triple play for the President. He gets to make the case that he's environmentally open-minded, undercuts the argument that invasion of Iraq has anything to do with oil, and steals the greenies issues as campaign ammunition against him.

[nicollo]

Many good points being made on this thread, especially that the President is playing a deep political game with this one. The statement was, indeed, a shot across the Persian Gulf.

Petroleum ain't going away. The stuff is too damned useful, too damned powerful, too easily extracted, and cheap. Gasoline is another matter. In the early days of oil refining gasoline was considered a waste product, useful only as a solvent for dry cleaning... Oil was for heating and lubrication. It replaced the existing technology, whale oil.

A State of the Union address is an orchestration of Administration priorities. It reflects the President's priorities. It also reflects who got whose ear. The Dept. of Energy lobbied the hell out of the White House for this one. Does anyone doubt that the President would have included it without the current crises? No way.

The interests and aims of the DOE in this may be real. The President's adoption of the program is entirely political. Hell, he may actually believe it, I dunno. Don't matter. As has been mentioned here, the monies are miniscule compared to the ambition.

Remember this, also: this President is a master at marking the language of the political debate. I don't know about you, but I cringed during the campaign when he launched the "compassionate conservate" business. Man, he stays on topic and makes it work.

[SJackson]

Do you actually think Bush would make a sweeping proposal where our hydrogen future is run out of the DOE like some communist command-economy?

Government financed fuel cell research is currently administered by The Office of Fossil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy. I doubt that would change, at least I hope not, the government has enough duplications.

[jayef]

Excellent point. I believe, as you do, that the dollars will go where the market leads. The problem is, you won't always have Bush around to oversee the program. Invariably these things take on a life of their own.

[SJackson]

The interests and aims of the DOE in this may be real...Remember this, also: this President is a master at marking the language of the political debate.

We don't know much till we see the proposal. As I noted in the last post, the DOE already administers fuel cell research, though it gets only about $58 million of a $860 million budget. A lot of this (1.2 billion over 5 years or 200 million per year) could simply be a shifting of priorities in a nearly $900 million per year budget item.

[Dead Dog]

They assume Bush/Rove are out to "score points with the greens", that misses the point. We are undermining the green's leverage with the fence sitters.

They assume Fuel Cell or Hydrogen Combustion is a pie in the sky technology. They aren't, the shuttle is powered buy fuel cells (the performance degrades measurably during the mission though). Permeable Metal membranes can "strain" free hydrogen off of Methanol or other hydrocarbons at a high enough rate to supply a internal combustion engine or fuel cell...and do it safely, without the "boil off" problems associated with stored hydrogen.

And, better yet, this is as much about lowering the cost of oil (i.e., scaring OPEC) as it is reducing dependence on ME oil. Just as we used SDI to spooked the Russians, Fuel Cell technology doesn't have to be technologically viable, it just has to pose a credible enough threat to leverage the Arabs. If it works, than we kill 2 birds (and one false prophet) with one stone. It has little do to with the environment, other than it would be a nice plus.

[jayef]

No. I don't think he was talking about anything specific.

PEM Cells show some promise.

http://www.bpa.gov/Energy/N/tech/fuel_cell/pem_fuel_cells.shtml

[radioman]

There is "junk science" behind the hydrogen car craze, as well. Under the Law of Conservation of Energy... Actually, it takes MORE energy to produce the hydrogen than is produced in burning it...

I don't know where you guys come up with these things. I am using hydrogen in my shop right now. I use it for welding. This is not something I have concocted, it's a commercial off the shelf hydrogen generator that anyone can buy. There are several makes, models and prices to choose from. It's cheaper to generate your own hydrogen than it is to buy bottled gasses.

The generator plugs into the wall and uses 4500 watts of power. Newer generators use less. 4500 watts is about eight horsepower. This machine will produce more hydrogen from water than a big American V8 running under full load can use. Automotive alternators can easily produce 4500 watts. You do the math.

[steve-b]

Mr. Bush's argument that hydrogen cars will lead to "energy independence" is straight out of the environmentalist and isolationist playbook and is damaging to his own bigger causes. We live in a global world -- as the pro-trade Mr. Bush often reminds us. Scrapping the gasoline engine isn't about to give us any less stake in the peace and security of the Middle East.

Somebody better get the canister of Stupid Gas out of the WSJ office ventaliation system.

Obviously, severely devaluing the only economically significant export of the jihad sponsors would be an enormous victory for the side of civilization. One may differ on the best route to that result, but to suggest that the result itself is not worthwhile is simple idiocy.