Honda, GM Stick to Fuel-Cell Plans as Obama Guts Hydrogen Funds

Honda, GM Stick to Fuel-Cell Plans as Obama Guts Hydrogen Funds

A few interesting snippets from the article.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

I'm no expert on alternative fuel, but fuel cell technology always struck me as rather promising. Its apparently promising enough that automakers are going to move ahead even with the deep cuts in government funding.

The biggest hurdle I've always heard is exactly what is said in the last quote, creating the new fuel infrastructure - i.e. fueling stations. Though according to the expert quoted there, it could be done in 10 to 15 years for what we spend in one year on corn ethanol subsidies.

It seems to be ashame to pull the rug out on funding for technology as it nears being able to enter the market. I think if we can overcome the infrastructure hurdle, that hydrogen fuel cells could be a big success. Their performance is already equivilent to gas powered cars according to the article and they have a current range of 240 miles before needing refueling. Not great, but adaquete and I think the newer fuel cells due to come out in five years will probably improve on that. In terms of miles to fuel ration, the article said it was already at the equivilent of 60 miles to the gallon.

HERE IS WHERE THE LIBERALS PROVE THEIR HYPOCRACY BEYOND ALL DOUBT. They cried and whined for 8 years about Big Oil and the Right fighting against alternative energy...namely Hydrogen. NOW.... they dump it. Those liberals are liars.

According to former U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm, "A hydrogen car is one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases." Asked when hydrogen cars will be broadly available, Romm replied: "Not in our lifetime, and very possibly never."[46] The Los Angeles Times wrote, in February 2009, "Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars.... Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars.

Hydrogen vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bhkad said:

According to former U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm, "A hydrogen car is one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases." Asked when hydrogen cars will be broadly available, Romm replied: "Not in our lifetime, and very possibly never."[46] The Los Angeles Times wrote, in February 2009, "Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars.... Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars.

Hydrogen vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Yes, I read that quote as well and I'll admit I'm not well informed on the pros and cons of the various alternative fuel ideas out there. I've read bad things on ethonal, that it takes mroe energy to make it than it provides, making a net energy loss and doing nothing to increase efficiency. In fact almost every alternative fuel seems to have some counter argument against it.

For hydrogen fuel cells I have to wonder one thing. If its so lousy, why are so many major auto manufacturers going ahead with it? I gotta think they have some idea of what will and won't work.

Psychoclown said:

Yes, I read that quote as well and I'll admit I'm not well informed on the pros and cons of the various alternative fuel ideas out there. I've read bad things on ethonal, that it takes mroe energy to make it than it provides, making a net energy loss and doing nothing to increase efficiency. In fact almost every alternative fuel seems to have some counter argument against it.

For hydrogen fuel cells I have to wonder one thing. If its so lousy, why are so many major auto manufacturers going ahead with it? I gotta think they have some idea of what will and won't work.

Click to expand...

Thats the best argument, if it doesn't work why are they pursuing it.

I'm not sure if they are using Browns gas or if it is strictly H.

Psychoclown said:

Yes, I read that quote as well and I'll admit I'm not well informed on the pros and cons of the various alternative fuel ideas out there. I've read bad things on ethonal, that it takes mroe energy to make it than it provides, making a net energy loss and doing nothing to increase efficiency. In fact almost every alternative fuel seems to have some counter argument against it.

For hydrogen fuel cells I have to wonder one thing. If its so lousy, why are so many major auto manufacturers going ahead with it? I gotta think they have some idea of what will and won't work.

Click to expand...

Well from my research you are pretty much right. Alot of the alternative fuels have a counter argument against it but I think people are failing to understand that its not cheap we are necessarily looking for, its how renewable the alternative fuel is.

Psychoclown said:

Yes, I read that quote as well and I'll admit I'm not well informed on the pros and cons of the various alternative fuel ideas out there. I've read bad things on ethonal, that it takes mroe energy to make it than it provides, making a net energy loss and doing nothing to increase efficiency. In fact almost every alternative fuel seems to have some counter argument against it.

For hydrogen fuel cells I have to wonder one thing. If its so lousy, why are so many major auto manufacturers going ahead with it? I gotta think they have some idea of what will and won't work.

Click to expand...

As an article published in the March/April 2007 issue of Technology Review stated,

In the context of the overall energy economy, a car like the BMW Hydrogen 7 would proba*bly produce far more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-powered cars available today. And changing this calculation would take multiple breakthroughs--which study after study has predicted will take decades, if they arrive at all. In fact, the Hydrogen 7 and its hydrogen-fuel-cell cousins are, in many ways, simply flashy distractions produced by automakers who should be taking stronger immediate action to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions of their cars.[41]​

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that "Top executives from General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. Tuesday expressed doubts about the viability of hydrogen fuel cells for mass-market production in the near term and suggested their companies are now betting that electric cars will prove to be a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale."[48]

In addition, Ballard Power Systems, a leading developer of hydrogen vehicle technology, pulled out of the Hydrogen vehicle business in late 2007.

Research Capital analyst Jon Hykawy concluded that Ballard saw the industry going nowhere and said: "In my view, the hydrogen car was never alive. The problem was never could you build a fuel cell that would consume hydrogen, produce electricity, and fit in a car. The problem was always, can you make hydrogen fuel at a price point that makes any sense to anybody. And the answer to that to date has been no."[49]

Click to expand...

IBID

bhkad said:

The problem was always, can you make hydrogen fuel at a price point that makes any sense to anybody. And the answer to that to date has been no.

Click to expand...

Check out this link and tell me what you think about their design.

It runs on regular gas and HHO or Browns Gas. Browns Gas can be made at your house with his set up.

Note that this guy is the real deal and not an internet scam. He runs a reputable scientific supply company.

United Nuclear - Hydrogen Fuel Systems

In the context of the overall energy economy, a car like the BMW Hydrogen 7 would proba*bly produce far more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-powered cars available today. And changing this calculation would take multiple breakthroughs--which study after study has predicted will take decades, if they arrive at all. In fact, the Hydrogen 7 and its hydrogen-fuel-cell cousins are, in many ways, simply flashy distractions produced by automakers who should be taking stronger immediate action to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions of their cars.[41]

Click to expand...

How is that possible when the car itself produces nothing but water vapor?

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that "Top executives from General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. Tuesday expressed doubts about the viability of hydrogen fuel cells for mass-market production in the near term and suggested their companies are now betting that electric cars will prove to be a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale."[48]

Click to expand...

Yet Toyota plans on releasing a fuel cell car for retail in 2012. In fact the article said that both Toyota and GMC are going to continue to pursue the technology even after Obama's cuts in funding.

In addition, Ballard Power Systems, a leading developer of hydrogen vehicle technology, pulled out of the Hydrogen vehicle business in late 2007.

Research Capital analyst Jon Hykawy concluded that Ballard saw the industry going nowhere and said: "In my view, the hydrogen car was never alive. The problem was never could you build a fuel cell that would consume hydrogen, produce electricity, and fit in a car. The problem was always, can you make hydrogen fuel at a price point that makes any sense to anybody. And the answer to that to date has been no."[49]

Click to expand...

I heard on Glen Beck the fuel cell car will cost $30,000 when it goes retail. Not cheap, but not outrageous depending on other factors.

American said:

HERE IS WHERE THE LIBERALS PROVE THEIR HYPOCRACY BEYOND ALL DOUBT. They cried and whined for 8 years about Big Oil and the Right fighting against alternative energy...namely Hydrogen. NOW.... they dump it. Those liberals are liars.

Click to expand...

Steven Chu is pretty bright guy.

What evidence do you have that this decision was based on anything but the best information available?

How are they dumping it? Honda, Toyota, Mercedes all seem to be way out in front--5 years out, I think is what the article. So, now we have to catch GM up? Is that your position?

bhkad said:

According to former U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm, "A hydrogen car is one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases." Asked when hydrogen cars will be broadly available, Romm replied: "Not in our lifetime, and very possibly never."[46] The Los Angeles Times wrote, in February 2009, "Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars.... Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars.

Hydrogen vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

So what? The lefties insisted we pursue alternative energy including hydrogen and biofuels. They were crazy maniacs about it and trying to kill off profits for Big Oil. I'm sure Halliburton was in there somewhere. They blasted Bush day after day for not having giving us the cars we wanted.

American said:

So what? The lefties insisted we pursue alternative energy including hydrogen and biofuels. They were crazy maniacs about it and trying to kill off profits for Big Oil.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what the left wanted, to kill off big oil.

tell me, then, why do those companies continue to donate to democratic election campaigns???:2wave:

Bhkad is correct on this one. Hydrogen is simply unfeasible as a means to power cars because of practical engineering constraints. Hydrogen needs to be used in liquid or compressed form if you want enough in a tank to power a car, and that is extremely impractical. Furthermore, you have to invent an entirely new system to get hydrogen and ship it to cars.

Although electric cars and biofuels have their own problems, they are far more likely to produce results. Biofuels can't be produced effectively in quantity, but could easily use existing engines and infrastructure. Electric cars are feasible with current technology, although they are not market competitive. Electric cars would require upgrading our power lines and more power plants, but it would use already existing techniques. Biofuels need a more efficient production mechanism to be wild scale, while electric cars need better batteries to out compete gas cars on the market.

The problem with most "green energy" stuff is that people don't analyze things on technical merits. A ton of "environmentally friendly" products are just clever marketing that entrap the customer. The whole industry could really use a healthy dose of people asking "how practical is this idea?".

The hydrogen fuel cell is only part of the equation. There are a lot of viable technologies now for producing hydrogen more cheaply than simple hydrolysis, but it is still expensive and time consuming. You need energy to make hydrogen which sort of defeats the purpose. One method of scaling down the energy cost is to use green energy like solar or wind, but even this cannot produce it on the necessary scale to replace a fossil fuel economy.

It is logistically sound from a budgetary perspective to abandon funding for hydrogen fuel. The research will continue and if promising innovations happen the government can always reconsider. Not to mention, the U.S. is currently in a recession and recessions are not the best time for mass funding of innovation. Save it for when the economy is back on its feet.

bhkad said:

According to former U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm, "A hydrogen car is one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases." Asked when hydrogen cars will be broadly available, Romm replied: "Not in our lifetime, and very possibly never."[46] The Los Angeles Times wrote, in February 2009, "Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars.... Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars.

Click to expand...

Well, the process seems really inefficient. Let's consider. First of all, if we are doing electrolysis by fossil fuel, that's already defeating the purpose. Second, burning fossil to produce energy is at absolute most 50% efficient. So we're wasting energy there in heaps and bounds. And then you gotta transport that electricity. Electricity leakage may take anywhere between 5% and 15% based on what I've read and the distance. So out of a 100 energy units, we're down to 45. Electrolysis of water is anywhere between 50~80% efficient, I'll do an average of 65%. We're down to 29.25 energy units. I don't have numbers on the efficiency once you put that into the hydrogen car but it can't be all that good. 100 to 29.25. Huh. Never mind that the average car is around 35% efficient and energy is not lost in the process of refining crude into gasoline.

If someone has the efficiency numbers for wind, I'd like them to do the calculations.

American said:

So what? The lefties insisted we pursue alternative energy including hydrogen and biofuels. They were crazy maniacs about it and trying to kill off profits for Big Oil. I'm sure Halliburton was in there somewhere. They blasted Bush day after day for not having giving us the cars we wanted.

Click to expand...

You mean the lefties that were against corn ethanol?
Or the lefties against palm oil?
How about the lefties against hydro?

Are we again thinking with our butts and not our brains American?

obvious Child said:

You mean the lefties that were against corn ethanol?
Or the lefties against palm oil?
How about the lefties against hydro?

Are we again thinking with our butts and not our brains American?

Click to expand...

You probably are.

American said:

You probably are.

Click to expand...

lol. I don't stereotype people like you do. And I like how you think I'm thinking out of my butt when I showed your thinking process was incompetent.

There are a lot of right answers in most all of the posts, both pro and con, but if and only if you put those answers into their correct time frames...

Hydrogen-based fuel cell vehicles are probably still the best long-term solution. The problems that remain are quite formidable: solutions will be difficult and a probably a long time in coming. Thus far, nothing has disproved the concept, but success will depend on advancing the technology such that costs are lowered and safety issues mitigated. As Pogo once said, "There is no heavier burden than great potential."

In the intermediate term, battery power, and especially plug-ins are highly likely to offer the best bang for the buck. The technology is much, much closer to being practical. We will see quite a few of these in the next five years, and some sooner. These will compete with biofuels in the same time frame; competing technologies which should spur both to greater efforts.

For the present, its still hybrids and biofuels additives.

When thinking of alternatives, you have to think in terms of time frames for development.

But those are just the technologies of which we are currently aware. My feeling is that we will ultimately see technological breakthroughs that will provide radical modifications to one or more of these, rendering the others moot. Or perhaps the breakthroughs will occur in some area to which most are not paying any attention at all, coming right out of left field, as the saying goes.

Yes, there may have been some budget cuts in one area, but there is still a huge amount of research being devoted to alternative fuels. Consequently, anything can happen. High-test algae, anyone?