Congress is back to funding research into hydrogen fuel cells and building a hydrogen infrastructure. That makes a lot more sense than planning for cars to run on natural gas, or worse yet, liquid coal (the most horrifying example of man’s insanity about energy yet).
If we are to have an “all hands on deck” approach to solving climate change, (something few in Washington really seem serious about yet) then it makes sense to try to develop everything we can. If we are looking at funding CCS research, (not an obviously good idea) we need to look at hydrogen fuel cell research. We need to look into each and every viable idea to help mitigate climate change before it’s too late. That is clear. So to that end, I’m all behind this reversal of what seemed like a bad idea — ending research and development into hydrogen fuel cells. Why was this ended in the first place? It seemed to be political, since this was an idea out of the Bush administration. If the research works and leads to one type of a real CO2-free transportation solution, even if it’s not widely used, it could benefit the human race and help us with the climate crisis.
FCS Clarity hydrogen car by Honda
The funding into more research has apparently been reinstated.
Energy Secretary Chu cut the hydrogen budget by $100 million in May, putting all the money instead into generic “fuel cell technologies”, saying:
“We asked ourselves, ‘Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will covert to a hydrogen car economy?’ The answer, we felt, was ‘no,’” Chu said in a briefing . . . . he cited several barriers, including infrastructure, development of long-lasting portable fuel cells and other problems.
Chu failed to mention that Carbon Capture and Storage (aka CCS, with permanent Sequestration, they hope) will also not be on board commercially until 2030 or beyond. Neither will the fancy new 4th generation Nuclear plants that Chu likes so much. It’s going to take a long time to develop what we want and we may make some important discoveries along the way, so we should get started ASAP. Why leave anything out?
Jim Motavalli reports that Congress is going to restore the funding. He wrote:
“Congress appears close to restoring the $100 million in funding for hydrogen research that Steven Chu, the energy secretary, had cut from his budget.
The House of Representatives voted 320-97 last Friday to approve $26.9 billion for the Energy Department, including $153 million for hydrogen and fuel cells in the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy program, plus $40.45 million for hydrogen from coal.
The Senate Appropriations Committee was even more bullish on hydrogen, approving $190 million for the program. Reconciliation of the two budget figures (assuming the full Senate leaves the $190 million intact) could result in a final amount greater than the $168 million for fuel cells in the 2009 Energy Department budget.”
Joanna Schroeder at Gas2.org reports it has already been reinstated.
On July 9, 2009, . . . . “the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water approved $190 million for the hydrogen and fuel cell program office which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). This action, in effect, restores the program to current year funding levels. Earlier this year, the administration demonstrated its lack of support for the future of hydrogen by pulling programs for hydrogen and fuel cell development. In addition, another $54 million was approved for the SECA program. The full appropriations committee meets tomorrow. This funding is for 2010.
“Congress recognized and embraced the role hydrogen fuels cells and their fuels play in the portfolio of energy technologies for the 21st century,” said Bob Rose, Executive Director for the U.S. Fuel Cell Council. “We hope that the Secretary of Energy (Steven Chu) and his staff embrace this as a spirit of goodwill.”
See more at Gas2.org
Some websites (often firmly on the side of most anything the Obama administration does) (except nuclear) are against hydrogen, even while they promote geoengineering and carbon capture and storage, which makes no sense at all. CCS probably won’t even work, but many people are in favor of sinking trillions into it.
Geoengineering is interesting, but it’s not something we should count on. We have to try what we can to get emissions down first. I actually like the idea of having thousands of small mirrors in space, reflecting the sun’s rays, but think of their vulnerability. An asteroid or years of small meteors could wipe them out, and we are phasing out the shuttle system, so I don’t even see how we’d repair or replace them once they are up there.
There is more recent news on the state of hydrogen development from the University of Michigan. The following is paraphrased from their podcast.
Right now, you can drive a hydrogen car in southern California — the FCX Clarity fuel cell vehicle from Honda. (pictured above) But you can’t buy the car, you can only lease it. And you have to have a good map, because there are only two places where you can fill the car up with hydrogen so far.
There are four major hurdles for hydrogen fuel cell cars: 1) the infrastructure problem (there is none), 2) fuel cells are expensive, 3) the cheapest way to make hydrogen right now releases pollution, and 4) there are problems with storing the gas.
In an interview with MIT’s technology review, Chu referred to these four points as “The Four Miracles”. That didn’t sit too well with some people.
Levi Thompson directs the hydrogen energy technology laboratory at the University of Michigan. He says talking about these problems as “miracles” sends the wrong message. He admits there are some big puzzles to solve, but he’s convinced that scientists can solve them.
“If you believe this is the savior, that this is going to transform the way we do things, we have a responsibility to invest.” he said.
Congress holds the purse and it looks like they will continue to fully fund the research. Automakers say the ups and downs of federal funding don’t affect their plans. Several automakers say they will start selling hydrogen powered cars in 6-8 years and they’ll let the market decide the fate of the hydrogen economy.
From The Environment Report Podcast, July 10 2009
Recent Comments