There are only three sure things in life -- death, taxes, and you won't be buying a hydrogen fuel cell car. Sadly, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has not gotten any of the memos (see "Some clarity on the Clarity" and "This just in: Hydrogen fuel cell cars are still dead").
As GreenCarCongress reports:
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has selected 10 cost-shared hydrogen storage research and development projects to receive up to $15.3 million over five years, subject to annual appropriations.
The selected projects seek to develop hydrogen storage technologies to enable fuel cell vehicles to meet customer expectations for longer driving range and performance. The projects include development of novel hydrogen storage materials, development of efficient methods for regeneration of hydrogen storage materials, and approaches to increase hydrogen binding energies to enable room temperature hydrogen storage.
It would be difficult for "fuel cell vehicles to meet customer expectations for longer driving range and performance" given that there are no customers for fuel cell vehicles nor are there going to be any time soon, and I mean soon in the sense of Hell-freezes-over soon.
I predict that by the end of the first term of the next president -- whoever he is -- the hydrogen fuel cell budget will be cut in half. If it were up to me, it would be cut 90% or more. Depending on what you include, the current budget is close to $300 million a year. All of that money should be shifted towards developing advanced batteries and cellulosic ethanol -- and deploying plug-in hybrids.
This latest DOE announcement shows just how bad an investment hydrogen technology has become for taxpayers:
DOE will negotiate the terms of 10 cost-shared projects currently planned for a total of approximately $18 million, with up to $15.3 million total government share, subject to annual appropriations, and $3 million applicant cost share.
In the good old days, we tried very hard to get 50-50 cost share. Now, at a time when the nation and the world has simply run out of time for pursuing high-in-the-sky projects, if you can't get the private sector to cough up half of the project cost, that is a pretty good sign that you are not pursuing a technology that is going to make much of a contribution for decades to come.
In case you want to know what rabbit hole your taxpayer dollars are disappearing down, here is the list of the 10 projects:
- Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos, N.M.) Up to $2.3 million for a novel concept using an electric field to increase the hydrogen binding energy in hydrogen adsorbents.
- Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.) Up to $2.2 million to design novel multi-component metal hydride-based mixtures for hydrogen storage.
- Northwestern University (Evanston, Ill.) Up to $1.3 million for novel hydrogen adsorbent materials with increased hydrogen binding energy through metal doping.
- Ohio State University (Columbus, Ohio) Up to $1.1 million for development of high capacity, reversible hydrogen storage materials using boron-based metal hydrides.
- Pennsylvania State University (University Park, Pa.) Up to $1.5 million for development of novel nanoporous materials for use as hydrogen adsorbents.
- US Borax Inc. (Greenwood Village, Colo.) Up to $600,000 for development of a high-efficiency process for the regeneration of spent chemical hydrogen carriers.
- University of Missouri (Columbia, Mo.) Up to $1.9 million for development of boron-substituted, high-surface area carbon materials made from corncobs for use as hydrogen adsorbents.
- University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon) Up to $640,000 for novel boron and nitrogen substituted cyclic compounds for use as liquid hydrogen carriers.
- University of California at Los Angeles (Los Angeles, Calif.) Up to $1.7 million for novel hydrogen adsorbent materials based on light metal impregnation for increasing hydrogen binding energies.
- Sandia National Laboratories (Livermore, Calif.) Up to $2.0 million for development of materials with tunable thermodynamics through the stabilization of nanosized particles.
Flush!
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Flat
Gar Lipow Posted 8:19 am
17 Aug 2008
Advanced batteries, deployment of plugins sure. Cellulosic ethanol - I'm not so sure. But maybe you have an argument to make why CE criticism unlike hydrogen criticism goes too far.
Permalink
salemguy Posted 10:06 am
17 Aug 2008
I think you have some things confused. Cellulosic ethanol has nothing to do with coal. Liquid coal fuels are indeed inefficient and big GHG producers, given how they must be produced. Cellulosic ethanol on the other hand is most efficiently produced from plant materials and garbage... long before it becomes coal.
How are you connecting coal and cellulosic ethanol?
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:44 am
17 Aug 2008
Oh, thats actually rather easy.
http://greyfalcon.net/coskata
http://greyfalcon.net/biolimits.png
http://greyfalcon.net/fossilenergy.png
Also, for bonus points, you might want to check these out.
http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/R-squared/~3/367327701/cos ...
http://greyfalcon.net/algae4
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:10 am
17 Aug 2008
I'd answer, "What Waste?"
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/16/112158/855
http://greyfalcon.net/peaksoil.pdf
http://www.stopbp-berkeley.org/CellulosicBiofuels.pdf
-David Ahlport
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 12:32 pm
17 Aug 2008
Hey, maybe T. Boone can bid on this...oops...he lost all his money on wind...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:07 pm
17 Aug 2008
Yes hydrogen is useless as an energy storage medium. But as with all the other useless technologies like CE, nuclear power, coal to lquid, clean coal, throwing a few million at them to shut the various lobbyists up is a good idea.
Luckily these scammers only got 15 million. What will a few experimental nukes cost? 50 billion? Experimental CE? 5 billion? Yikes. What a mess.
It's not helpful at all that Joe is touting CE. Is he looking for a spot in an Obama administration? Modern political correctness cultivates corn state votes, and coal state votes. And nuclear industry money.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:01 pm
17 Aug 2008
"U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Andy Karsner today announced up to $30 million in funding over three years for three cost-shared Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) demonstration and development projects. The selected projects will accelerate the development of PHEVs capable of traveling up to 40 miles without recharging, which includes most daily roundtrip commutes and satisfies 70 percent of the average daily travel in the U. S."
This is a better way to spend money. I believe the average daily trip length is 21 miles though. Making this figure of 40 miles saving 70% somewhat hard to understand.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 4:24 pm
17 Aug 2008
Then again, since when did Los Alamos care 'bout emissions standards (or the humans that drive 'em, for that matter?)
Permalink
sindark Posted 12:40 am
18 Aug 2008
a sibilant intake of breath
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 12:52 am
18 Aug 2008
But I'm in favor of spending 'reasonable' amounts on researching almost everything and hydrogen fuel cells fall into that category.
Businesses aren't good at funding 'pure' research, the sort of stuff that isn't likely to produce a marketable product in the near future, that's a chore largely left to governments.
Let's spend a few million on hydrogen/fuel cells and see where it might take us.
At the same time, let's spend all that's needed to bring promising solutions to the market.
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 1:01 am
18 Aug 2008
It's small comfort, but compared to past research budgets that were addressing all sorts of other problems that were downstream, I'm at least glad to see the focus.
Re: cellulosic and coal, all I can say is "huh?" That just doesn't pencil. Cellulosics are like a sugarcane mill, in the sense that the sugar comes "prepackaged" with it's fuel, in the form of all the woody bits around the sugar (lignin, etc.) Indeed, this gives a cellulosic ethanol plant an inherently (much) smaller carbon foot print than a corn ethanol plant.
There are legitimate challenges getting the cellulose broken down into a fermentable form, but the cellulose:coal link just doesn't add up.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 1:07 am
18 Aug 2008
I believe it's about minus-seven years for the latter. The car companies just go along with the charade. They don't get the gasoline revenue.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:15 am
18 Aug 2008
http://newenergyfocus.com/do/ecco.py/view_item?listid=1&a ...=
The new Environmental Energy Technology Centre (EETC) between Rotherham and Sheffield should see all its power provided by a 225kW turbine.
And, even when the wind does not blow, the turbine should be able to provide the building's power needs through a hydrogen fuel cell system.
The system will generate hydrogen from excess power from the wind turbine through an electrolyser, which can then turned back into electricity by the fuel cell during periods of low wind speed.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:20 am
18 Aug 2008
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/hydrogenics-supply- ...
Hydrogenics, a leading designer and manufacturer of hydrogen electrolyzers and fuel cell systems, has been selected by Powertech Labs, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BC Hydro, to provide an electrolyzer for a community hydro-hydrogen-diesel system serving the community of Bella Coola, British Columbia.
...
"Hydrogen provides an ideal energy storage solution," said Daryl Wilson, President and CEO of Hydrogenics. "We believe that hydrogen will play a critical role in capturing the power of renewable resources and creating viable energy systems that are cost effective, sustainable and environmentally friendly," says Wilson. Batteries are often used to store excess energy; however, batteries incur significant energy loss over time and are relatively expensive options for large scale energy storage. By comparison, stored hydrogen does not dissipate energy over time and the cost of storage is relatively low. "Hydrogen storage is highly scalable and ideal for storing large amounts of energy for long periods of time," Wilson added. This is particularly significant at Bella Coola where the intermittency of the run-of-the-river system will require long-term storage, where hydrogen significantly outperforms batteries. In addition, hydrogen is multi-use and can be used to fuel vehicles and other industrial equipment.
Permalink
patrickS Posted 8:00 am
20 Aug 2008
To meet our energy needs, we'll need a portfolio of options and hydrogen technologies are going to be PART of that portfolio. So that means hydrogen technologies WITH, not instead of, renewables, plug-in technology, some batteries, hybridization and others so that we can use the advantages of each technology. Looking for a silver bullet, if you believe in that sort of thing, will limit us all.
And research dollars are going to continue to be needed to make these technologies ready for commercialization. So let's put some effort into making some progress (like the fact that the cost of a fuel cell for a vehicles has come down from $300/kW to $90/kW in just the last 4 years due in part to DOE money), instead of trying to cut technologies out of the picture.
I spend a lot of my time working with the National Hydrogen Association and I'll be the first to say that we're going to need a group of technologies (not JUST hydrogen) if we really want to have a meaningful impact on A) reducing fuel imports, B) improving the environment and C) growing the economy. And as we work to get there, hydrogen will be an important part of the solution.
Permalink
jgangi Posted 7:07 am
21 Aug 2008
Permalink
H2andYou Posted 7:43 am
21 Aug 2008
Although many focus on the automotive industry's progress developing hydrogen technologies, that's just the tip of the iceberg. Consider: both Motorola and Samsung are developing hydrogen-powered cellular phones to be released in 2010. And, the cellular phone industry has already deployed approximately 200 hydrogen back-up power units, which are tied to cell phone towers in the event of a power outage. That means the next cell phone call you make could be powered by hydrogen.
In addition, today's businesses are starting to add hydrogen injection systems on their trucks, bypassing the need for a fueling infrastructure all together, thereby lowering operational fuel costs. And, quite logically, this is making the products we purchase more environmentally-friendly. And, let's not forget that fuel cell forklifts are currently being used by companies such as Wal-Mart and Bridgestone/Firestone to transport goods in warehouses. It was a commitment to research and investment that made each of these technologies possible.
Over the last several decades, we have witnessed different kinds of technologies evolve and impact our lives in ways we couldn't have completely imagined. Everything from cell phones to computers to televisions have evolved and improved in speed, reception, size and their range of capabilities. These advancements in technology became possible through research. The same is true for hydrogen technologies today. Researchers will continue to explore, improve and diversify how hydrogen can impact our lives.
Here are few stories that highlight some of the recent progress that has been made throughout the hydrogen industry:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/06/3m-fuel-cell-me.h ...
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/06/toyota-fuel-cell- ...
http://www.smartpower.org/blog/?p=422
As a representative of the National Hydrogen Association, I am helping people understand that hydrogen is a universal fuel that can be used to store energy and power everything from cars, to laptops, to heating systems for your car. It can be produced from any resource, including many that produce no emissions whatsoever other than water, including solar, wind, and nuclear.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 9:52 am
21 Aug 2008
Let me guess. Part of your job description is to surf the net looking for opportunities to plug hydrogen? I have a friend who has a job like that, except he plugs a different product.
We are not Luddites here, or at least most of us.
Of course hydrogen has many uses and always will. The criticism has been about the over hyping of hydrogen. Government funded research is good stuff but occasionally lobbyists, from whatever industries, manage to convince politicians to move from funding research to throwing tax payer money into the pockets of players, like the hydrogen or biofuels industry, to move beyond the lab, building full scale refineries, or hydrogen fueling stations when doing so isn't justified by the technology or market.
Tanks of gaseous hydrogen sitting ready to fire up a fuel cell at remote cell towers in the event of a power outage sound like a good application, and best of all, no government subsidization needed.
One can see how this concept might be expanded as a giant battery to assist wind and solar.
Fork lifts are often electric to avoid putting fumes into work spaces. Cost issues aside, one can see how fuel cells might be feasible inside a warehouse where you can swap out your gas tank as often as needed through the day. Again, if it makes sense, a company will use them, no government subsidy needed.
But the hydrogen industry just wants to make big bucks, any way they can, like most other industries and if they can enhance those profits by convincing the government to hand them money, they will do so. That's one problem.
Powering cars would be a real cash cow. How all that hydrogen would be produced, liquefied, moved and stored is the other problem, for taxpayers, a godsend to the hydrogen industry.
You can't escape the laws of physics. Hydrogen, even liquid hydrogen, takes up a lot of space. That car you mentioned has a storage tank four times bigger than a gas car. The tanks are also ultra high pressure and expensive, as opposed to a simple welded steel tank.
In addition, today's businesses are starting to add hydrogen injection systems on their trucks, bypassing the need for a fueling infrastructure all together, thereby lowering operational fuel costs. And, quite logically, this is making the products we purchase more environmentally-friendly.
You might want to drop the above from your spiel. Hydrogen injection systems are a scam.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/08/04/why-on-board-hydr ...
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink