Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

Energy Department Working to Kill Fuel Cell Development

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 28, 2009 | 09:27 PM
  #1  
formula79's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
Energy Department Working to Kill Fuel Cell Development

It is funny how this stuff goes. A few years ago Hybrids were just stepping stones, and a practical all electric car not an option. While I do agree with fuel cells not being a short term solution...I would like to see them invested in long term.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124874456766585605.html

WASHINGTON -- Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants to kill research and development on cars that run on hydrogen fuel cells, but a spending bill approved by the House this month and another scheduled for a Senate vote this week would restore funding for the program.

Mr. Chu has said that hydrogen fuel cells are an impractical technology for vehicles, partly because they would require the creation of a network of hydrogen fueling stations.


Energy Secretary Steven Chu's efforts to overhaul federal energy research are encountering resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are moving to give him money for projects that he doesn't support while withholding funds for others he says are critical. Energy reporter Stephen Power explains.
A Nobel-Prize winning physicist and former director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which conducts federal energy research, Mr. Chu argues that improved internal-combustion engines and plug-in electric vehicles are more realistic technologies for cutting oil consumption over the next 20 to 30 years.

Former President George W. Bush championed the development of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, saying they could reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The federal government has spent roughly $1.5 billion since 2001 on hydrogen fuel-cell research.

Among those fighting to keep federally funded hydrogen-vehicle research alive are General Motors Corp., Daimler AG, Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co. The companies, which are in various stages of developing hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, say the U.S. needs a broad range of technologies to combat climate change.

Some lawmakers fear cuts in hydrogen-car subsidies would translate into job losses at university and corporate labs in their states.

"The department's made a significant mistake here," Sen. Byron Dorgan (D., N.D.) told Mr. Chu at a recent hearing of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development. Mr. Dorgan, the panel's chairman, has steered millions of federal dollars over the past five years to the National Center for Hydrogen Technology at the University of North Dakota in Grand Forks.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu, center, with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, left, and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Monday at a U.S.-China conference in Washington. Mr. Chu says hydrogen cars are impractical.
Mr. Dorgan acknowledged that hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles are "not near term." But he said that "if somebody is going to look at things that are...essential in the longer term, who but the Department of Energy should do that?"

The spending bill to be voted on by the Senate this week added $204 million for research and development across various hydrogen technologies, compared with the $68.2 million the administration had sought for work focused mainly on near-term fuel-cell applications, such as power supplies for buildings and forklifts.

Overall, the House and Senate spending bills would fund the Energy Department at roughly the levels called for by President Barack Obama. But they greatly scale back funding for Mr. Chu's $280 million plan to create eight new research-and-development labs, staffed by scientists from multiple disciplines.

Dubbed "energy innovation hubs," the labs would focus on what Mr. Chu argues should be the Energy Department's research-and-development priorities, such as making solar power competitive with fossil fuels and creating energy-efficient building designs.

Mr. Chu has said the labs would function as "little Bell Lablets," a reference to AT&T Bell Laboratories, where he conducted much of the work for which he won the Nobel Prize.

But the House bill would provide Mr. Chu with only $35 million, enough for just one hub. "It's not that it's a bad idea, but the implementation is something we need to see," Rep. Ed Pastor (D., Ariz.) said. "What you don't want is duplication."

The White House said in a statement Monday that the administration "strongly opposes" lawmakers' attempts to cut funding for the energy-innovation hubs. The labs "will advance highly promising areas of energy science and technology from their early states," the statement said.

A third bill, passed last week in the House, authorizes the Energy Department to spend $30 million annually for five years on research and development of natural-gas vehicles, even though the Obama administration hasn't sought money for such activities. The legislation was written by Rep. John Sullivan (R., Okla.), whose state is home to Chesapeake Energy Corp. and other large natural-gas producers.

Mr. Sullivan said the legislation will contribute to the fight against climate change, citing research that shows natural-gas vehicles produce significantly lower greenhouse-gas emissions than gasoline-powered vehicles.

Mr. Chu has said using natural gas as a transportation fuel "will put a strain on natural gas for industrial uses, for heating, and other things."
Old Jul 29, 2009 | 07:24 AM
  #2  
Z28Wilson's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,165
From: Sterling Heights, MI
I understand that considering our current infrastructure, fuel cells are the least likely alternative for the foreseeable future. Still, shouldn't we be exploring ALL possible avenues if the situation is so "dire" as they are telling us?
Old Jul 29, 2009 | 08:10 AM
  #3  
Bearcat Steve's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 210
From: Cincinnati, OH
I would think that it would be easier -- and perhaps cheaper -- to add the ability to dispense H2 to existing fuel stations than it would be to add the appropriate electrical outlets to everyplace that people may parks their cars.

If given a vote on the matter -- I can't since I am not part of the government -- I would opt for investing in R&D on H2 cells. Of course, I would rather see private industry do it, bit that is neither here nor there.
Old Jul 29, 2009 | 09:09 AM
  #4  
Plague's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,448
From: Irving, TX
Originally Posted by Bearcat Steve
I would think that it would be easier -- and perhaps cheaper -- to add the ability to dispense H2 to existing fuel stations than it would be to add the appropriate electrical outlets to everyplace that people may parks their cars.
While I don't know how hard it would be to add H2 to fueling stations, you don't need electrical outlets everywhere cars are parked. People could add them to there homes, and then businesses could add them to their parking lots and have them be a pay item. If you are going to be spending an hour in WalMart, why not fill up on a charge. I would also assume that the charging of batteries becomes better for this to be a real option.
Old Jul 29, 2009 | 09:50 AM
  #5  
Geoff Chadwick's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,154
From: All around
Adding the high-current outlets is certainly "easier". You can bend power cables and they dont leak like a gas line does.

However, saying a distribution network must be in place is also the same problem we have/had for E85. Look where E85 was going and now.... isnt. The steam just fell right out of that ship when gas went back down. All alternatives have - cause we're Americans (which means the vast majority of us dont honestly care about anything that is outside of our own armspan).

If you want to talk about energy research - put it into Fission/Fusion development. That will help *much* more than just cars. The nation does not have huge problems with gasoline shortages. The nation DOES have huge problems with brownouts/blackouts.
Old Jul 29, 2009 | 10:32 AM
  #6  
jg95z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,705
From: Oakland, California
We are either going to need to create H2 refueling stations or stations that can "hot-swap" EV battery packs at some point.

It can be done on a state by state scale though if we model Norway.
http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/norway-hynor-project.htm
Old Jul 29, 2009 | 03:01 PM
  #7  
formula79's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,698
From: USA
I think with this decision..I am willing to bet all you need to do is follow the political money. Thats the only way I can see one green technology falling out so drastically in favor of another.
Old Jul 29, 2009 | 03:50 PM
  #8  
FUTURE_OF_GM's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 632
From: NC
LOL...

Politics and research/manufacturring should NEVER mix.

*shakes head*

Oh, and the DEFEATIST attitude has reached an all time high in this country if the REAL reason we're shying away from hydrogen is the lack of an infrastructure... Give me a break.
Old Jul 29, 2009 | 11:05 PM
  #9  
flowmotion's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
This fuel cell stuff was political to begin with. The point was to pick a futuristic enough technology so Detroit wouldn't have to put any hybrids into production.

Now they've all come around committed to EVs, no more need to waste anyone's time on hydrogen.
Old Jul 29, 2009 | 11:21 PM
  #10  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by flowmotion
Now they've all come around committed to EVs, no more need to waste anyone's time on hydrogen.
Hydrogen cars were EV. Fuel cell is basically just another battery type.
Old Jul 30, 2009 | 01:00 AM
  #11  
SSbaby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Originally Posted by FUTURE_OF_GM
LOL...

Politics and research/manufacturring should NEVER mix.

*shakes head*

Oh, and the DEFEATIST attitude has reached an all time high in this country if the REAL reason we're shying away from hydrogen is the lack of an infrastructure... Give me a break.
My thoughts exactly.

In fact, I distinctly remember both Daimler and BMW believing that Hydrogen showed the most promise in regards to alternative propulsion... irrespective of US politics.

EDIT: Pros and Cons: http://www.spiegel.de/international/...448648,00.html

Last edited by SSbaby; Jul 30, 2009 at 01:12 AM.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
DirtyDaveW
Forced Induction
13
Dec 1, 2016 05:37 PM
InfernalVortex
LT1 Based Engine Tech
3
Jan 17, 2015 09:35 AM
Injuneer
Advanced Tech
0
Jan 15, 2015 02:49 PM
Injuneer
LT1 Based Engine Tech
5
Dec 15, 2014 09:36 AM
BLOWNBIRD
Forced Induction
10
May 28, 2003 01:02 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:21 AM.