Hydrogen Fuel-Cell News
05-12-2009, 11:23 AM
#1
The sizzle in the Steak
Thread Starter
Hydrogen Fuel-Cell News
In a reversal from the Bush administration, President Obama on Monday drastically cut federal funding for fuel-cell vehicles. President Obama eliminated President Bush’s $1.2 billion fuel-cell initiative, saving $100 million a year from the government’s bottom line.
The death of the program comes as quite a shock, especially considering most within the industry view fuel-cells as the technology of the future. The Obama administration cited the lack of immediate implementation as the reason for the fuel-cell cuts.
“We’re going to be moving away from hydrogen-fuel cells for vehicles,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said. “We asked ourselves, is it likely in the next 10 or 15, or even 20 years that we will convert to a hydrogen car economy? The answer, we felt, was no.”
Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are probably about 20 years away from viability – largely due to a lack of infrastructure – but it remains to be seen if President Obama’s decision will push that timeframe back even further. Funds reserved for fuel-cell research will now be funneled into biofuel and battery research, according to Bloomberg.
Despite the 60 percent cutback in overall hydrogen fuel-cell funding, Honda, Toyota and General Motors say they are committed to the development of fuel-cell vehicles. Honda is currently leasing its FCX fuel-cell vehicle in Los Angeles and General Motors has placed 115 examples of its hydrogen-power Chevrolet Equinox in fleets on both coasts. Toyota says it will sell its first hydrogen-powered vehicle by 2015.
“Our program will continue unaffected by this,” John Hanson, a Toyota spokesman, told Bloomberg. Hanson added: “The vehicles have been invented. The issues are infrastructure and how do we reduce cost.”
Some experts believe that with proper funding, a hydrogen infrastructure could be in place within the next 10 to 15 years.
The death of the program comes as quite a shock, especially considering most within the industry view fuel-cells as the technology of the future. The Obama administration cited the lack of immediate implementation as the reason for the fuel-cell cuts.
“We’re going to be moving away from hydrogen-fuel cells for vehicles,” Energy Secretary Steven Chu said. “We asked ourselves, is it likely in the next 10 or 15, or even 20 years that we will convert to a hydrogen car economy? The answer, we felt, was no.”
Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are probably about 20 years away from viability – largely due to a lack of infrastructure – but it remains to be seen if President Obama’s decision will push that timeframe back even further. Funds reserved for fuel-cell research will now be funneled into biofuel and battery research, according to Bloomberg.
Despite the 60 percent cutback in overall hydrogen fuel-cell funding, Honda, Toyota and General Motors say they are committed to the development of fuel-cell vehicles. Honda is currently leasing its FCX fuel-cell vehicle in Los Angeles and General Motors has placed 115 examples of its hydrogen-power Chevrolet Equinox in fleets on both coasts. Toyota says it will sell its first hydrogen-powered vehicle by 2015.
“Our program will continue unaffected by this,” John Hanson, a Toyota spokesman, told Bloomberg. Hanson added: “The vehicles have been invented. The issues are infrastructure and how do we reduce cost.”
Some experts believe that with proper funding, a hydrogen infrastructure could be in place within the next 10 to 15 years.
...and I thought W's energy stance on backing Ethanol was stupid....
Obama's running away from hydrogen is even worse.
So much for energy independence.
05-12-2009, 11:28 AM
#2
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fontana, California
Age: 47
Posts: 30,991
Received 582 Likes
on
346 Posts
"The Obama administration cited the lack of immediate implementation as the reason for the fuel-cell cuts."
It takes time to make a viable solution let alone convince the american public that it's not about v6's and v8's anymore and that their SUV's aren't commuter cars and should be thought of as purely as recreational or commercial vehicles and not for running to the grocery store with your two kids who could have fit in a sedan, wagon, or minivan.
Fix those things first and you'll see technologies like this take off.
05-12-2009, 11:40 AM
#3
The sizzle in the Steak
Thread Starter
Obama FTL....all this guy talked about was how the US relied on foreign oil for decades, and evil big oil, and how the U.S. never invested in new renewable energy for the future.
Obama said he was going to change all of this.....
.....and then he does this.
This is his solution? No thanks...Obama you are full of
Obama said he was going to change all of this.....
.....and then he does this.
This is his solution? No thanks...Obama you are full of
05-12-2009, 11:43 AM
#4
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fontana, California
Age: 47
Posts: 30,991
Received 582 Likes
on
346 Posts
Obama FTL....all this guy talked about was how the US relied on foreign oil for decades, and evil big oil, and how the U.S. never invested in new renewable energy for the future.
Obama said he was going to change all of this.....
.....and then he does this.
This is his solution? No thanks...Obama you are full of
Obama said he was going to change all of this.....
.....and then he does this.
This is his solution? No thanks...Obama you are full of
05-12-2009, 11:58 AM
#7
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fontana, California
Age: 47
Posts: 30,991
Received 582 Likes
on
346 Posts
Notice how when Chrysler was going to file for bankruptcy it magically wasn't in the news but swine flu somehow was? Obama's plan to save Chrsyler had flat out failed. I wouldn't be surprised if they planned on making swine flu interesting enough so that it diverted the publics attention away from his failed attempt.
Last edited by Sly Raskal; 05-12-2009 at 12:02 PM.
Trending Topics
05-12-2009, 12:00 PM
#8
Drifting
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Franklin, Indiana
Age: 38
Posts: 2,367
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The ignorance is strong among the American population.
Notice how when Chrysler was going to file for bankruptcy it magically wasn't in the news but swing flu somehow was? Obam's plan to save chrsyler flat out failed. I'm wouldn't be surprised if they planned on making swine flu interesting enough so that it diverted the publics attention away from his failed attempt.
Notice how when Chrysler was going to file for bankruptcy it magically wasn't in the news but swing flu somehow was? Obam's plan to save chrsyler flat out failed. I'm wouldn't be surprised if they planned on making swine flu interesting enough so that it diverted the publics attention away from his failed attempt.
Haha, with the way the media hyped the flu it probably would have been the "Top Story" vs an impending nuclear attack.
05-12-2009, 12:05 PM
#9
Oderint dum metuant.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Wylie
Age: 46
Posts: 12,496
Likes: 0
Received 534 Likes
on
446 Posts
At any given point, it will take twenty years to get up and running. The idea is to start now, so it's available in twenty years, not start in twenty years so it's available forty years from now. The lack of foresight and planning is unbelievable. I'm not surprised, though. I just wonder at what point people will wake up and realize what some of us realized all along.
05-12-2009, 12:15 PM
#10
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fontana, California
Age: 47
Posts: 30,991
Received 582 Likes
on
346 Posts
At any given point, it will take twenty years to get up and running. The idea is to start now, so it's available in twenty years, not start in twenty years so it's available forty years from now. The lack of foresight and planning is unbelievable. I'm not surprised, though. I just wonder at what point people will wake up and realize what some of us realized all along.
05-12-2009, 12:22 PM
#13
How many times have the educated and/or the people in the know population said something like that and yet nothing is ever done. It's because that population usually aren't the ones making the decisions; otherwise, I honestly feel our country would be in a much better position.
A big
to that.
05-12-2009, 01:57 PM
#14
Safety Car
Honda Presses On
Honda, GM Stick to Fuel Cell Plans as Obama Guts Hydrogen Funds
Alan Ohnsman and Tina Seeley Alan Ohnsman And Tina Seeley – Mon May 11, 12:00 am ET
Alan Ohnsman and Tina Seeley Alan Ohnsman And Tina Seeley – Mon May 11, 12:00 am ET
May 11 (Bloomberg) -- Honda Motor Co., General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. say they’ll push ahead with development of hydrogen-powered autos after the Obama administration gutted fuel-cell funding plans in favor of biofuels and batteries.
U.S. Energy Department funding for hydrogen-related projects would be cut by 60 percent to $68.2 million next fiscal year under budget plans that President Barack Obama presented last week. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the department will concentrate on projects such as hydrogen power for buildings because it’s unlikely the fuel can be widely deployed for vehicles anytime soon.
“Honda has a significant commitment to fuel cells and we’re going to pursue it,” said Ed Cohen, vice president of U.S. government and industry affairs for the Tokyo-based automaker, in an interview. “We have a limited number of options to achieve transportation objectives which include less use of petroleum and reducing greenhouse gases. Hydrogen is one of them.”
Carmakers for a decade poured billions of dollars into developing electric models powered by hydrogen, promoting the fuel as an eventual replacement for oil and a way to cut carbon exhaust linked to global warming. While the driving performance of Honda, GM and Toyota hydrogen models rivals gasoline-engine vehicles, hurdles include high production and materials costs, durability and a lack of fueling stations.
Those issues, along with a need for better fuel tanks and to find ways to make large amounts of hydrogen from sources other than natural gas, limit the technology's appeal, Chu said at a press briefing May 7 on the proposed budget for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
Rejecting Bush Priority
The move rejects a priority of President George W. Bush, who in his 2003 State of the Union speech to Congress called for $1.2 billion in spending on hydrogen-powered cars.
“We’re going to be moving away from hydrogen-fuel cells for vehicles,” Chu said. “We asked ourselves, is it likely in the next 10 or 15, or even 20 years that we will convert to a hydrogen car economy? The answer, we felt, was no.”
Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, led research of biofuels at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, when Obama named him to run the Energy Department.
The agency is boosting biofuel funds 8.3 percent to $235 million. Support for advanced battery-powered and gasoline- engine autos will grow 22 percent to $333.3 million.
The cut for hydrogen was described in Energy Department materials as a reduction of “less effective programs so we can invest in our economic future.”
Fuel cells, typically layers of plastic film and precious metals sandwiched together, generate electricity in a chemical process that combines hydrogen and oxygen. Water vapor is the only byproduct.
Honda’s FCX Clarity
Cheaper, longer-lasting fuel-cell stack and hydrogen-tank materials should be ready in five years, Honda President Takeo Fukui said in an April 23 interview in Detroit. Fukui, 64, is retiring as head of Japan’s second-largest carmaker next month.
Honda began selling the FCX Clarity in Los Angeles last year, charging $600 a month to lease the five-passenger sedan for three years. Actress Q’orianka Kilcher got her new Clarity, the second fuel-cell car she’s leased from Honda, in Santa Monica, California, at the same time Chu announced the funding cuts.
The U.S. rates Clarity as traveling 240 miles (386 kilometers) when fueled with 3.9 kilograms of hydrogen gas, the equivalent of 60 miles per gallon of fuel.
GM loans 115 Chevrolet Equinox sport-utility vehicles to individuals and companies to acquaint people with fuel-cell technology.
GM’s Reinvention
“Hydrogen is a key to solving the nation’s mid- to long- term issues of energy security, reduced petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions as well as being part of the reinvention of General Motors,” said Larry Burns, vice president of research and development and strategic planning for Detroit-based GM.
Toyota said in January it will sell fuel-cell cars in 2015, and South Korea’s Hyundai Motor Co. and Germany’s Daimler AG also are planning hydrogen vehicles for retail customers.
“Our program will continue unaffected by this,” said John Hanson, a spokesman for Toyota’s U.S. unit in Torrance, California, responding to the Obama budget cuts. “The vehicles have been invented. The issues are infrastructure and how do we reduce cost.”
As the U.S. pulls back, Japan, Germany and South Korea are expanding fuel-cell programs and California, home to the largest fleet of such models, this year set aside $40 million to open more hydrogen stations.
Honda and Toyota, based outside the U.S., can’t receive federal funds for their programs. “The only downside I see is the possibility this is going to slow development of fueling infrastructure that we need,” Hanson said.
‘Very Disappointing’
The policy shift is “very disappointing,” said Dan Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis and a member of the state’s Air Resources Board. The agency has authority to set environmental rules for carmakers and other industries rivaling the federal government’s.
“It’s unclear how we’re going to get big reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without hydrogen,” Sperling said. “Hydrogen is the most challenging in terms of implementation because of the need for new fueling infrastructure.”
That could be created in 10 to 15 years at less cost than the “$6 billion to $10 billion” the U.S. provides annually in subsidies for corn ethanol, Sperling said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Alan Ohnsman in Los Angeles aohnsman@bloomberg.net ; Tina Seeley in Washington at tseeley@bloomberg.net
05-12-2009, 02:05 PM
#15
I disagree with all of you. Hydrogen was/is a false prophet from the get-go, and I fully support the black president for round-filing this garbage.
It's merely a boutique technology for the people so uncomforatble with the idea of their car not being powered by a liquid fuel that they'll stop at nothing to develop this "gasoline v.2.0" no matter how far flung or poorly thought out the idea appears to sane people. You simply can't escape the fact that producing hydrogen fuel in serious quantity requires inputs of non-renewable resources such as coal and fossil fuel. That's the only way they know how to do it right now, and that's why hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long term loser and will likely never be a suitable replacement for gasoline.
If they could harvest hydrogen out of the air, that would different.
It's merely a boutique technology for the people so uncomforatble with the idea of their car not being powered by a liquid fuel that they'll stop at nothing to develop this "gasoline v.2.0" no matter how far flung or poorly thought out the idea appears to sane people. You simply can't escape the fact that producing hydrogen fuel in serious quantity requires inputs of non-renewable resources such as coal and fossil fuel. That's the only way they know how to do it right now, and that's why hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long term loser and will likely never be a suitable replacement for gasoline.
If they could harvest hydrogen out of the air, that would different.
05-12-2009, 02:07 PM
#16
Senior Moderator
So he can cut funding for that but continue to give funding to the shit fuel ethanol? He is an idiot. He has no foresight. is his 4 years up yet?
is his 4 years up yet?
05-12-2009, 02:13 PM
#17
Oderint dum metuant.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lake Wylie
Age: 46
Posts: 12,496
Likes: 0
Received 534 Likes
on
446 Posts
Gee, let's see, dump billions into ethanol, a KNOWN failure, or dump billions into hydrogen, something that could pay off handily. They're going to spend the billions no matter what, so I'd rather them spend it on the chance than the fail.
05-12-2009, 02:13 PM
#18
Senior Moderator
I disagree with all of you. Hydrogen was/is a false prophet from the get-go, and I fully support the black president for round-filing this garbage.
It's merely a boutique technology for the people so uncomforatble with the idea of their car not being powered by a liquid fuel that they'll stop at nothing to develop this "gasoline v.2.0" no matter how far flung or poorly thought out the idea appears to sane people. You simply can't escape the fact that producing hydrogen fuel in serious quantity requires inputs of non-renewable resources such as coal and fossil fuel. That's the only way they know how to do it right now, and that's why hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long term loser and will likely never be a suitable replacement for gasoline.
If they could harvest hydrogen out of the air, that would different.
It's merely a boutique technology for the people so uncomforatble with the idea of their car not being powered by a liquid fuel that they'll stop at nothing to develop this "gasoline v.2.0" no matter how far flung or poorly thought out the idea appears to sane people. You simply can't escape the fact that producing hydrogen fuel in serious quantity requires inputs of non-renewable resources such as coal and fossil fuel. That's the only way they know how to do it right now, and that's why hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long term loser and will likely never be a suitable replacement for gasoline.
If they could harvest hydrogen out of the air, that would different.
05-12-2009, 02:14 PM
#19
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fontana, California
Age: 47
Posts: 30,991
Received 582 Likes
on
346 Posts
I disagree with all of you. Hydrogen was/is a false prophet from the get-go, and I fully support the black president for round-filing this garbage.
It's merely a boutique technology for the people so uncomforatble with the idea of their car not being powered by a liquid fuel that they'll stop at nothing to develop this "gasoline v.2.0" no matter how far flung or poorly thought out the idea appears to sane people. You simply can't escape the fact that producing hydrogen fuel in serious quantity requires inputs of non-renewable resources such as coal and fossil fuel. That's the only way they know how to do it right now, and that's why hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long term loser and will likely never be a suitable replacement for gasoline.
If they could harvest hydrogen out of the air, that would different.
It's merely a boutique technology for the people so uncomforatble with the idea of their car not being powered by a liquid fuel that they'll stop at nothing to develop this "gasoline v.2.0" no matter how far flung or poorly thought out the idea appears to sane people. You simply can't escape the fact that producing hydrogen fuel in serious quantity requires inputs of non-renewable resources such as coal and fossil fuel. That's the only way they know how to do it right now, and that's why hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long term loser and will likely never be a suitable replacement for gasoline.
If they could harvest hydrogen out of the air, that would different.
The perfect analogy for your argument is that millions, probably billions has gone into research for a cancer cure and since we dont' have a cure today, that it's not worth continuing research.
05-12-2009, 02:16 PM
#20
Senior Moderator
So your basing your whole argument on what we know now and not on the idea that further research and testing could yield some breakthrough for the future?
The perfect analogy for your argument is that millions, probably billions has gone into research for a cancer cure and since we dont' have a cure today, that it's not worth continuing research.
The perfect analogy for your argument is that millions, probably billions has gone into research for a cancer cure and since we dont' have a cure today, that it's not worth continuing research.
05-12-2009, 02:27 PM
#23
Fahrvergnügen'd
I disagree with all of you. Hydrogen was/is a false prophet from the get-go, and I fully support the black president for round-filing this garbage.
It's merely a boutique technology for the people so uncomforatble with the idea of their car not being powered by a liquid fuel that they'll stop at nothing to develop this "gasoline v.2.0" no matter how far flung or poorly thought out the idea appears to sane people. You simply can't escape the fact that producing hydrogen fuel in serious quantity requires inputs of non-renewable resources such as coal and fossil fuel. That's the only way they know how to do it right now, and that's why hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long term loser and will likely never be a suitable replacement for gasoline.
If they could harvest hydrogen out of the air, that would different.
It's merely a boutique technology for the people so uncomforatble with the idea of their car not being powered by a liquid fuel that they'll stop at nothing to develop this "gasoline v.2.0" no matter how far flung or poorly thought out the idea appears to sane people. You simply can't escape the fact that producing hydrogen fuel in serious quantity requires inputs of non-renewable resources such as coal and fossil fuel. That's the only way they know how to do it right now, and that's why hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long term loser and will likely never be a suitable replacement for gasoline.
If they could harvest hydrogen out of the air, that would different.
Originally Posted by "PhysOrg.com
In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.
05-12-2009, 02:31 PM
#24
"Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are probably about 20 years away from viability – largely due to a lack of infrastructure – but it remains to be seen if President Obama’s decision will push that timeframe back even further. Funds reserved for fuel-cell research will now be funneled into biofuel and battery research, according to Bloomberg."
Ding Ding Ding!
-Stick to broadening the market share of gasoline-electric hybrids...make them better and more affordable for average people while not requiring any changes to storage and refueling infrastructures. (The plain ole' gas station still works fine.)
-Dump the research money into battery technology so passenger cars can be full electric within the next 10-15 years. (and so I dont have to recharge my Blackberry every goddamn day.)
-Keep diesel around for industrial use such as ships, trains, trucks, military use. Possibly hyrodgen could have reasonable applications in this area simply because it's cleaner.
Ding Ding Ding!
-Stick to broadening the market share of gasoline-electric hybrids...make them better and more affordable for average people while not requiring any changes to storage and refueling infrastructures. (The plain ole' gas station still works fine.)
-Dump the research money into battery technology so passenger cars can be full electric within the next 10-15 years. (and so I dont have to recharge my Blackberry every goddamn day.)
-Keep diesel around for industrial use such as ships, trains, trucks, military use. Possibly hyrodgen could have reasonable applications in this area simply because it's cleaner.
05-12-2009, 02:35 PM
#25
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fontana, California
Age: 47
Posts: 30,991
Received 582 Likes
on
346 Posts
^^^ YAY! Instead of carbon emissions polluting the air, let's poison the land with the development and disposal of batteries.
Last edited by Sly Raskal; 05-12-2009 at 02:37 PM.
05-12-2009, 02:38 PM
#26
Moderator Alumnus
I disagree with all of you. Hydrogen was/is a false prophet from the get-go, and I fully support the black president for round-filing this garbage.
It's merely a boutique technology for the people so uncomforatble with the idea of their car not being powered by a liquid fuel that they'll stop at nothing to develop this "gasoline v.2.0" no matter how far flung or poorly thought out the idea appears to sane people. You simply can't escape the fact that producing hydrogen fuel in serious quantity requires inputs of non-renewable resources such as coal and fossil fuel. That's the only way they know how to do it right now, and that's why hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long term loser and will likely never be a suitable replacement for gasoline.
If they could harvest hydrogen out of the air, that would different.
It's merely a boutique technology for the people so uncomforatble with the idea of their car not being powered by a liquid fuel that they'll stop at nothing to develop this "gasoline v.2.0" no matter how far flung or poorly thought out the idea appears to sane people. You simply can't escape the fact that producing hydrogen fuel in serious quantity requires inputs of non-renewable resources such as coal and fossil fuel. That's the only way they know how to do it right now, and that's why hydrogen fuel cell technology is a long term loser and will likely never be a suitable replacement for gasoline.
If they could harvest hydrogen out of the air, that would different.
Granted there are some interesting methods coming around there is nothing today to keep up with the demands. I think putting it off for 10-20 years is very logical. That is until they can split water atoms more efficiently to produce hydrogen in mass quantities. Or they bring more nuclear plants online to do electrolysis.
Lets also not forget GM's huge ass battery in their new electric vehicle is equal to about 1 gallon of gas
05-12-2009, 02:39 PM
#27
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,634
Received 2,328 Likes
on
1,308 Posts
Batteries and hybrids in general are absolute frauds. They add weight, complexity, cost and best of all pollute more than their non-hybrid brethren
Personally I think the United States should switch over to powering our vehicles on natural gas. Its clean and we have enough reserves to be self sufficient.
Thats $700 billion per year that doesn't LEAVE this country and instead STAYS.
05-12-2009, 02:41 PM
#28
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fontana, California
Age: 47
Posts: 30,991
Received 582 Likes
on
346 Posts
Exactly, there is no efficient way to produce hydrogen in mass quantities at the moment. In fact it creates more emissions creating it for automotive use than it would just burning gasoline. Creating hydrogen is so inefficient they'd have to dedicate a nuclear plant just to create small amounts of it. Just not realistic at this point in time until we get more nuclear plants online.
Granted there are some interesting methods coming around there is nothing today to keep up with the demands. I think putting it off for 10-20 years is very logical. That is until they can split water atoms more efficiently to produce hydrogen in mass quantities. Or they bring more nuclear plants online to do electrolysis.
Granted there are some interesting methods coming around there is nothing today to keep up with the demands. I think putting it off for 10-20 years is very logical. That is until they can split water atoms more efficiently to produce hydrogen in mass quantities. Or they bring more nuclear plants online to do electrolysis.
Wouldn't increasing demand for hydrogen based transportation be a way to entice more companies to want to do research in improving the technology though?
05-12-2009, 02:44 PM
#29
05-12-2009, 02:46 PM
#31
Moderator Alumnus
So the question isn't about cutting funding on researching ways to develop better ways of creating hydrogen sources, but instead cutting funding on the actual uses of this fuel.
Wouldn't increasing demand for hydrogen based transportation be a way to entice more companies to want to do research in improving the technology though?
Wouldn't increasing demand for hydrogen based transportation be a way to entice more companies to want to do research in improving the technology though?
Yes, there's a bunch of companies working on it...
05-12-2009, 02:50 PM
#32
Moderator Alumnus
Seems there's an environmental cost here no matter how you do it.
Then there's another fascinating program about recycling spent nuclear waste into a reusable form. Problem is every time you do it; it makes the plutonium closer to weapons grade. But you can recycle something like 90-95% for the waste back into a usable form again.
Optimally using solar/wind would be great but the electrolysis process is just too inefficient still...
05-12-2009, 02:52 PM
#33
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Fontana, California
Age: 47
Posts: 30,991
Received 582 Likes
on
346 Posts
Today if we produce hydrogen using dedicated nuclear plants the nuclear waste has to go somewhere too... which has a 1/2 life of 100,000 years.
Seems there's an environmental cost here no matter how you do it.
Then there's another fascinating program about recycling spent nuclear waste into a reusable form. Problem is every time you do it; it makes the plutonium close to weapons grade.
Optimally using solar/wind would be great but the electrolysis process is just too inefficient still...
Seems there's an environmental cost here no matter how you do it.
Then there's another fascinating program about recycling spent nuclear waste into a reusable form. Problem is every time you do it; it makes the plutonium close to weapons grade.
Optimally using solar/wind would be great but the electrolysis process is just too inefficient still...
I agree, the nuclear waste disposal is a more serious environmental concern.
But that doesn't change my mind that hybrids with batteries are a logical short term solution. They definitely are not a long term solution.
Last edited by Sly Raskal; 05-12-2009 at 02:55 PM.
05-12-2009, 03:00 PM
#34
I would rather worry about trying to figure out recycle old worn out batteries than any of the other eviromental consequences (Nuclear waste, greenhouse emissions). And look at how small they can make starter batteries these days! I actually have faith they can improve gasoline-electric technology from it's relatively crude state at the moment. There's never "no consequences" whatever we do.
http://www.voltphreaks.com/products_street.php
http://www.voltphreaks.com/products_street.php
05-12-2009, 03:08 PM
#35
Safety Car
this is a tough choice, and one that I can't really disagree with. As stated above its just not feasible to use Hydrogen in wide scale right now, and so why not wait for non-government research to catch up, and use money in this recession that can result in more immediate gains
Sounds 'silver lining'-ey, but at least they are not printing more money to support initiatives
Sounds 'silver lining'-ey, but at least they are not printing more money to support initiatives
05-12-2009, 03:09 PM
#36
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2009
Age: 42
Posts: 745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another likely shortsighted policy motivated by politics. I think the argument that the hydrogen infrastructure will take 15 years to be built is especially weak, and pushes the country towards more ad hoc, short-term solutions. The financial impetus for dropping the program is even less relevant; the $100 million per year savings is negligible when we are running $2 trillion deficits.
The government should be providing research funding for many different types of alternative fuel technologies and letting these technologies compete in an open market, instead of choosing one technology and taking the "all the eggs in one basket" approach.
The government should be providing research funding for many different types of alternative fuel technologies and letting these technologies compete in an open market, instead of choosing one technology and taking the "all the eggs in one basket" approach.
Last edited by JD23; 05-12-2009 at 03:12 PM.
Have we forgotten about the $1T that was recently printed?
05-12-2009, 03:36 PM
#38
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,634
Received 2,328 Likes
on
1,308 Posts
05-12-2009, 06:26 PM
#39
Pro
First of all, I'm 100% against ethanol.
Second, I'm quite uncertain about fuel cell and hydrogen. These things have been in development for sometime and we haven't seen a lot of progress. I don't think the government decision is a big deal - automakers are free to spend whatever money they want on fuel cell development, if the business case is strong.
I'm not so sure about electric cars either - someone better speed up the technology development.
What I really want to see is
1) The introduction of more diesel cars/trucks in the U.S.
2) Increase tax on gasoline. That's the only way for people to get out of gas guzzling SUVs.
Second, I'm quite uncertain about fuel cell and hydrogen. These things have been in development for sometime and we haven't seen a lot of progress. I don't think the government decision is a big deal - automakers are free to spend whatever money they want on fuel cell development, if the business case is strong.
I'm not so sure about electric cars either - someone better speed up the technology development.
What I really want to see is
1) The introduction of more diesel cars/trucks in the U.S.
2) Increase tax on gasoline. That's the only way for people to get out of gas guzzling SUVs.
05-12-2009, 06:43 PM
#40
Obama needed money to fund his programs from somewhere. Its not like he was going magically have money for all these new initiatives and at the same time decrease our deficit.....
I agree with the tax on gasoline (I daily drive a V8 muscle car btw) but NOT on diesel. Our infrastructure relies on big diesel-powered semi trucks and the drivers are hurting to pay for their gas as it is. Diesel prices matter the most since to them, their livelihood depends on it. We have it WAY too well off here, other countries get taxed to death on things like engine displacement and vehicle inspections. I'm going to get flamed for this like I always do but I don't have a problem with a fixed increase in gasoline tax, as long as its used to fund the right program. another .20 cents/gal translates only to an average of $2 more per fillup. You can easily make up for that amount by not eating out once a week, not flushing when you take a piss only, turning off the shower when you lather, or ending your showers a minute early, etc. etc. etc.
Ethanol is useless as its been mentioned. It has a lower energy content than gasoline does. My friend runs his Evo X on E85 and he needed to upgrade his fuel delivery system to deliver as much as 30% more fuel to accommodate.
@ the use of avatar
but sadly I don't see too many automakers interested in pursuing natural gas.... at least not that I've seen. The only company that comes to mind is Honda and its previous-gen Civic GX, which they cancelled
I agree with the tax on gasoline (I daily drive a V8 muscle car btw) but NOT on diesel. Our infrastructure relies on big diesel-powered semi trucks and the drivers are hurting to pay for their gas as it is. Diesel prices matter the most since to them, their livelihood depends on it. We have it WAY too well off here, other countries get taxed to death on things like engine displacement and vehicle inspections. I'm going to get flamed for this like I always do but I don't have a problem with a fixed increase in gasoline tax, as long as its used to fund the right program. another .20 cents/gal translates only to an average of $2 more per fillup. You can easily make up for that amount by not eating out once a week, not flushing when you take a piss only, turning off the shower when you lather, or ending your showers a minute early, etc. etc. etc.
Ethanol is useless as its been mentioned. It has a lower energy content than gasoline does. My friend runs his Evo X on E85 and he needed to upgrade his fuel delivery system to deliver as much as 30% more fuel to accommodate.
@ the use of avatarBingo..
Batteries and hybrids in general are absolute frauds. They add weight, complexity, cost and best of all pollute more than their non-hybrid brethren
Personally I think the United States should switch over to powering our vehicles on natural gas. Its clean and we have enough reserves to be self sufficient.
Thats $700 billion per year that doesn't LEAVE this country and instead STAYS.
Batteries and hybrids in general are absolute frauds. They add weight, complexity, cost and best of all pollute more than their non-hybrid brethren
Personally I think the United States should switch over to powering our vehicles on natural gas. Its clean and we have enough reserves to be self sufficient.
Thats $700 billion per year that doesn't LEAVE this country and instead STAYS.
but sadly I don't see too many automakers interested in pursuing natural gas.... at least not that I've seen. The only company that comes to mind is Honda and its previous-gen Civic GX, which they cancelled