Using fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen from zero-carbon sources such as renewable power or nuclear energy has a cost of avoided carbon dioxide of more than $600 a metric ton, which is more than a factor of ten higher than most other strategies being considered today….

So I wrote in a 2005 journal article, “The car and fuel of the future,” which was the “hottest article” in Energy Policy from July 2006 through March 2007 (and still #8 as recently as September 2008).

So after the Bush administration squandered some $2 billion on hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, it was welcome news that our Nobel-prize-winning Energy Secretary Steven Chu submitted a budget that sharply scaled back the hydrogen fuel cell program and shifted it away from a focus on transportation (see “Hydrogen car R.I.P. Secretary Chu agrees with Climate Progress and slashes hydrogen budget“).

Now some hydrogen advocates — and even some environmental groups! — are trying to restore the money, which is much more urgently needed helping to develop and deploy clean technologies that could save energy and reduce pollution in the near-and medium-term. I’ll blog on that effort later.

First, however, I wanted to once and for all lay out the case against hydrogen as a transport fuel, starting with an excerpt of almost my entire Energy Policy piece. I think it is worthwhile reading for anyone interested in understanding the challenges facing alternative fuels.

Abstract

This paper is based on a review of the technical literature on alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and discussions with experts in vehicle technology and energy analysis. It is derived from analysis provided to the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy.

The urgent need to reverse the business-as-usual growth path in global warming pollution in the next two decades to avoid serious if not catastrophic climate change necessitates action to make our vehicles far less polluting.

In the near-term, by far the most cost-effective strategy for reducing emissions and fuel use is efficiency. The car of the near future is the hybrid gasoline–electric vehicle, because it can reduce gasoline consumption and greenhouse gas emissions 30 to 50% with no change in vehicle class and hence no loss of jobs or compromise on safety or performance. It will likely become the dominant vehicle platform by the year 2020.

Ultimately, we will need to replace gasoline with a zero-carbon fuel. All AFV pathways require technology advances and strong government action to succeed. Hydrogen is the most challenging of all alternative fuels, particularly because of the enormous effort needed to change our existing gasoline infrastructure.

The most promising AFV pathway is a hybrid that can be connected to the electric grid. These so-called plug-in hybrids will likely travel three to four times as far on a kilowatt-hour of renewable electricity as fuel cell vehicles….

1. Introduction

Any energy and environmental policy effort must come to grips with transportation. Roughly 97% of all energy consumed by our cars, sport utility vehicles, vans, trucks, and airplanes is still petroleum-based.

In the 1990s, the transportation sector saw the fastest growth in carbon dioxide emissions of any major sector of the US economy. And the transportation sector is projected to generate nearly half of the 40% rise in US carbon dioxide emissions forecast for 2025 (EIA, 2005).

Internationally, the situation is equally problematic. As Claude Mandil, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), said in May 2004, ‘‘In the absence of strong government policies, we project that the worldwide use of oil in transport will nearly double between 2000 and 2030, leading to a similar increase in greenhouse gas emissions’’ (IEA, 2004).

Significantly, between 2003 and 2030, over 1400GW of new coal capacity will be built. These plants would commit the planet to total carbon dioxide emissions of some 500 billion metric tons over their lifetime, unless ‘‘they are backfit with carbon capture equipment at some time during their life,’’ as David Hawkins, Director of Natural Resources Defense Council’s Climate Center told the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce in June 2003. Hawkins continued:

‘‘To put this number in context, it amounts to half the estimated total cumulative carbon emissions from all fossil fuel use globally over the past 250 years!’’ (Hawkins, 2003)

It is critical that whatever strategy the world adopts to reduce GHG emissions in the vehicle sector does not undermine our efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector. With this caveat in mind, I explore some of the pathways most widely discussed for reducing or replacing oil while significantly reducing transportation greenhouse gas emissions: efficiency, electricity (particularly plug-in hybridgasoline
vehicles); ethanol from cellulosic biomass; and hydrogen.

2. Alternative fuels and alternative fuel vehicles.

Alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and their fuels face two central problems. First, they typically suffer from several marketplace disadvantages compared to conventional vehicles running on conventional fuels. Hence, they inevitably require government incentives or mandates to succeed. Second, they typically do not provide cost-effective solutions to major energy and environmental problems, which undermines the policy case for having the government intervene in the marketplace to support them.

On the second point, in September 2003, the US Department of Transportation Center for Climate Change and Environmental Forecasting released its analysis, Fuel Options for Reducing Greenhouse Gas
Emissions from Motor Vehicles. The report assesses the potential for gasoline substitutes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next 25 years. It concludes that “the reduction in GHG emissions from most gasoline substitutes would be modest’’ and that ‘‘promoting alternative fuels would be a costly strategy for reducing emissions’’ (DOT, 2003).

The US government and others (such as of California and Canada) have tried to promote AFVs for a long time. The 1992 Energy Policy Act established the goal of having alternative fuels replace at least 10% of petroleum fuels in 2000, and at least 30% in 2010. Currently, alternate fuels consumed in AFVs substitute for under 1% of total consumption of gasoline.

A significant literature has emerged explaining this failure (GAO, 2000, Flynn, 2002). Besides the question of whether AFVs deliver cost-effective emissions reductions, there have historically been six major barriers to AFV success:

1. high first cost for vehicle
2. on-board fuel storage issues (i.e. limited range)
3. safety and liability concerns
4. high fueling cost (compared to gasoline)
5. limited fuel stations: chicken and egg problem
6. improvements in the competition (better, cleaner gasoline vehicles).

All AFVs that have so far been promoted with limited success—electric vehicles, natural gas vehicles, methanol vehicles, and ethanol vehicles—have each suffered from several of these barriers. Any one of these barriers can be a showstopper for an AFV or an alternative fuel, even where other clear benefits are delivered. MTBE, for instance, has had its biggest difficulty with the safety and liability issue, even though it has minimal problems in the other areas because it can be blended directly with gasoline. Electric vehicles deliver the clear benefit of zero tailpipe emissions, and can even have lower per mile costs than gasoline cars, but range, refueling, and firstcost issues have limited their success and caused most major auto companies to withdraw their electric vehicles from the marketplace.

The chicken and egg problem—who will build and buy the AFVs if a fueling infrastructure is not in place and who will build the fueling infrastructure before the AFVs are built—remains the most intractable barrier. Consider that there are millions of flexible fuel vehicles already on the road capable of running on E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline), 100% gasoline, or just about any blend, for about the same price as gasoline-powered vehicles, and yet the vast majority of them run on gasoline and there are have been very few E85 stations built.

In the case of natural gas light-duty vehicles, the environmental benefits were oversold, as were the early cost estimates for both the vehicles and the refueling stations: ‘‘Early promoters often believe that ‘prices just have to drop’ and cited what turned out to be unachievable price levels.’’ One study concluded, ‘‘Exaggerated claims have damaged the credibility of alternate transportation fuels, and have retarded acceptance, especially by large commercial purchasers’’ (Flynn, 2002).

All AFVs face the increasing ‘‘competition’’ from improved gasoline-power vehicles. Indeed, two decades ago when tailpipe emissions standards were being developed requiring 0.02 g/mile of NOx, few suspected that this could be achieved by internal combustion engine vehicles running on reformulated gasoline.

The new generation of hybrid PZEVs such as the Toyota Prius and Ford Escape hybrid have substantially raised the bar for future AFVs. These vehicles have no chicken and egg problem (since they can be fueled everywhere), no different safety concerns than other gasoline cars, a substantially lower annual fuel bill, greater range, a 30% to 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and a 90% reduction in tailpipe emissions. The vehicles do cost a little more, but that is more than offset by the current government incentive and the large reduction in gasoline costs, even ignoring the performance benefits. Compare that to many AFVs, whose environmental benefits, if any, typically come at the expense not merely of a higher first cost for the vehicle, but a much higher annual fuel bill, a reduced range, and other undesirable attributes from the consumer’s perspective.

2.1. Hydrogen

Widespread use of stationary fuel cells running on natural gas seems likely post-2010, particularly if high temperature fuel cells achieve their cost and performance targets. The transition to a transportation system based on a hydrogen economy will, however, be much slower and more difficult than widely realized.

In particular, it is unlikely that hydrogen vehicles will achieve significant (45%) market penetration by 2030. A variety of major technology breakthroughs and government incentives will be required for them to achieve significant commercial success by the middle of this century. Continued R&D in hydrogen and transportation fuel cell technologies remains important because of their potential to provide a zero-carbon transportation fuel in the second half of the century. But neither government policy nor business investment should be based on the assumption that these technologies will have a significant impact in the near- or medium-term.

Bill Reinert, US manager of Toyota’s advanced technologies group said in January 2005, absent multiple technology breakthroughs, we won’t see high volume sales of fuel cell vehicles until 2030 or later (Truett, 2005). When Reinert was asked when fuel cells cars would replace gasoline-powered cars, he replied ‘‘If I told you ‘never,’ would you be upset?’’ (Butters et al., 2005).

Hydrogen cars face enormous challenges in overcoming each of the major historical barriers to AFV success.

The central challenge for any AFV seeking government support beyond R&D is that the deployment of the AFVs and the infrastructure to support them must cost effectively address some energy or environmental problems facing the nation. Yet in the spring issue of Issues and Science and Technology, two hydrogen experts, Dan Sperling and Joan Ogden of U.C. Davis, wrote, ‘‘Hydrogen is neither the easiest nor the cheapest way to gain large near- and medium-term air pollution, greenhouse gas, or oil reduction benefits’’(Sperling and Ogden, 2004). A 2004 analysis by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the University of Maryland concluded that even ‘‘in the advanced technology case with a carbon constraint, hydrogen doesn’t penetrate the transportation sector in a major way until after 2035’’(Geffen et al., 2004). A push to constrain carbon dioxide emissions actually delays the introduction of hydrogen cars because sources of zero-carbon hydrogen such as renewable power can achieve emissions reductions far more cost-effectively simply replacing planned or existing coal plants. As noted above, our efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the vehicle sector must not come at the expense of our efforts to reduce GHG emissions in the electric utility sector.

In fact, Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context, a January 2004 study by the European Commission Center for Joint Research, the European Council for
Automotive R&D, and an association of European oil companies, concluded that using hydrogen as a transport fuel might well increase Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions rather than reduce them (JRC, 2004). That is because many pathways for making hydrogen, such as grid electrolysis, can be quite carbon-intensive and because hydrogen fuel cells are so expensive that hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles may be deployed instead (which is already happening in California). Using fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen from zero-carbon sources such as renewable power or nuclear energy has a cost of avoided carbon dioxide of more than $600 a metric ton, which is more than a factor of ten higher than most other strategies being considered today.

A number of major studies and articles have recently come out on the technological challenges facing hydrogen. Transportation fuel cells currently cost about $4000/kW, some 100 times greater than the cost of internal combustion engines (Wald, 2004).

[JR: Yes, a couple of numbers and quotes in this piece are a little out of date, which I will update in future posts. But even today, no company in the world sells a commercial transportation fuel cell warranteed for 100,000 miles for substantially below $4000/kw. The Honda FCX is “the world’s first hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicle intended for mass production.” Yet as the New York Times reported, “the cars cost several hundred thousand dollars each to produce,” although Honda’s president Takeo Fukui “said that should drop below $100,000 in less than a decade as production volumes increase" (see "The Last Car You Would Ever Buy — Literally"). So even after 15 years, and billions of dollars of investment by the government and private sector, transportation fuel cells are prohibitively expensive.]

A 2004 article for the Society of Automotive Engineers noted, “Even with the most optimistic assumptions, the fuel cell powered vehicle offers only a marginal efficiency improvement over the advanced [diesel]-hybrid and with no anticipation yet of future developments of IC engines. At $100/kW, the fuel cell does not offer a short-term advantage even in a European market” (Oppenheim and Schock, 2004).

A prestigious National Research Council panel concluded a major report in February 2004 with a variety of important technical conclusions (NRC, 2004). For instance, the panel said, ‘‘The DOE should halt efforts on high-pressure tanks and cryogenic liquid storage. They have little promise of long-term practicality for light-duty vehicles.’’ A March 2004 study by the American Physical Society concluded that “a new material must be discovered” to solve the storage problem (APS, 2004). An analysis in the May 2004 issue of Scientific American stated, ‘‘Fuel-cell cars, in contrast [to hybrids], are expected on about the same schedule as NASA’s manned trip to Mars and have about the same level of likelihood’’ (Wald, 2004).

There is a tendency in analyses of a future hydrogen economy to assume the end state—mass production of low-cost fuel cells, pipeline delivery, and so on. Yet while transportation fuel cells would undoubtedly be far cheaper if they could be produced at quantities of one million units per year, the unanswered question is who will provide the billions of dollars in subsidies during the many years when vehicle sales would be far lower and vehicle costs far higher. And while pipelines are the desired end game, and ‘‘the costs of a mature hydrogen pipeline system would be spread over many years,’’ as the National Research Counicl panel noted, ‘‘the transition is difficult to imagine in detail’’ (NRC, 2004). The AFV problem is very much a systems problem where the transition issues are as much of the
crux as the technological ones. We believe all AFV analysis should be conservative in nature, stating clearly what is technologically and commercially possible today, and, when discussing the future, be equally clear that projections are speculative and will require both technology breakthroughs and major government intervention in the marketplace. Analysis should treat the likely competition fairly: If major advances in cost reduction and performance are projected for hydrogen technologies, similar advances should be projected for hybrids, batteries, biofuels, and the like.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles face major challenges to overcome each and every one of the barriers discussed earlier. It is possible we may never see a durable, affordable fuel cell vehicle with an efficiency, range, and annual fuel bill that matches even the best current hybrid vehicle. Of all AFVs and alternative fuels, fuel cell vehicles running on hydrogen are probably the least likely to be a cost-effective solution to global warming, which is why the other pathways deserve at least equal policy attention and funding.

2.2. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs)

One AFV, however, has clear environmental benefits, including substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions, a much lower annual fuel bill, a much longer range than current cars (with the added ability to fuel at home), and far fewer infrastructure issues than traditional AFVs. This AFV is the plug-in hybrid.

A straightforward improvement to the current generation of hybrids can allow them to be plugged into the electric grid and run in an all-electric mode for a limited range between recharging. Since most vehicle use is for relatively short trips, such as commuting, followed by an extended period of time during which the vehicle is not being driven and could be charged, even a relatively modest all-electric range of 20 or 40 miles could allow these vehicles to replace a substantial portion of gasoline consumption and tailpipe emissions. If the electricity were from CO2-free sources, then these vehicles would also have dramatically reduced net greenhouse gas emissions.

Because they have a gasoline engine, and are thus a dual-fuel vehicle, PHEVs avoid two of the biggest problems of pure electric vehicles. First they are not
limited in range by the total amount of battery charge. If the initial battery charge runs low, the car can run purely on gasoline and on whatever charging is possible from the regenerative braking. Second, electric vehicles take many hours to charge, so that if for some reason owners were unable to allow the car to charge—either because they lacked the time between trips to charge or there was no local charging capability—then the pure electric car could not be driven. Thus, PHEVs combine the best of both hybrids and pure electric vehicles.

Battery improvement will lead to increased functionality for PHEVs. Improvements in specific energy (Wh/kg) and specific power (W/kg) will reduce weight. Reductions in cost and increases in cycle life (durability) will make PHEVs more affordable. Adequate safety is a requirement. Operating temperature is important, but batteries with unusual operating temperatures may be considered if other benefits are demonstrated. Convenience of recharging is crucial, but the definition of ‘‘convenience’’ varies by users. A full recharge overnight from an ordinary home outlet is generally considered to be sufficient for a personal PHEV.

2.3. Barriers

PHEVs avoid many of the barriers to AFVs discussed earlier. They do not have a limited range. They do not have major safety and liability issues—although great care would have to be taken in the design of any home-based system that charged PHEVs or allowed them to feed back into the grid. They do not have a high fueling cost compared to gasoline. In fact, the per-mile fueling cost of running on electricity is about one-third the per-mile cost of running on gasoline.

The chicken and egg problem is minimized because electricity is widely available and charging is relatively straightforward.

The vehicle will almost certainly have a higher first cost, but this is likely to be more than compensated by the economic benefit of a lower fuel bill, as a 2003 study by the California Energy Commission and California Air Resources Board concluded (CEC and CARB, 2003). Also, that study did not consider a large potential revenue stream the vehicle owner may be able to extract from the utility by having what is essentially a portable electric generator.

A PHEV owner may be able to extract revenue for grid regulation services—generators that can provide fast response when grid voltage needs to be increased or decreased. Utilities would pay for this service if there was a guarantee that the car could deliver juice when needed, which suggests that this is more practical for vehicle fleets or for a corporate sponsor. The potential value of such services is significant: $700 to $3000 per year (Letendre and Kempton, 2002). This value is so large that it might allow the monthly cost of purchasing or leasing a PHEV to be lower than a conventional car, and perhaps even cover the replacement cost for batteries if they prove not to have a 100,000+mile lifetime typically expected of modern cars. It is critical that we fund some real-world demonstrations of PHEVs providing these services, to see if this value can be extracted. If it can, we might see major utilities helping to subsidize the cost and/or financing of PHEVs.

Environmentally, PHEVs offer two potentially significant benefits. First, since they are designed to run all-electric for short trips such as commuting, they offer the possibility of being zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) in cities. The best early uses of PHEVs may well be to replace dirty diesel engine vehicles used regularly in cities, such as buses, maintenance vehicles, and delivery trucks. If we are unable to overcome the
multiple technical and practical hurdles to hydrogen fuel cell cars, then PHEVs may be the only viable option for urban zero emission vehicles.

The potential greenhouse gas benefits of PHEVs are even more significant, if a source of zero-carbon electricity can be utilized for recharging. PHEVs have an enormous advantage over hydrogen fuel cell vehicles in utilizing zero-carbon electricity. That is because of the inherent inefficiency of generating hydrogen from electricity, transporting hydrogen, storing it onboard the vehicle, and then running it through the fuel cell.

The total well-to-wheels efficiency with which a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle might utilize renewable electricity is roughly 20% (although that number could rise to 25% or a little higher with the kind of multiple technology breakthroughs required to enable a hydrogen economy). The well-to-wheels efficiency of charging an onboard battery and then discharging it to run an electric motor in a PHEV, however, is 80% (and could be higher in the future)—four times more efficient than current hydrogen fuel cell vehicle pathways.

As Dr. Alec Brooks, who led the development of the Impact electric vehicle has shown, ‘‘Fuel cell vehicles that operate on hydrogen made with electrolysis consume four times as much electricity per mile as similarly sized battery electric vehicles’’ (Brooks, 2004). Ulf Bossel, founder of the European Fuel Cell Forum, comes to a similar conclusion in a recent article, ‘‘The daily drive to work in a hydrogen fuel cell car will cost four times more than in an electric or hybrid vehicle’’ (Bossel, 2004).

This relative inefficiency has enormous implications for achieving a sustainable energy future. To replace half of US ground transport fuels (gasoline and diesel) in the year 2050 with hydrogen from wind power, for example, might require 1400GW of advanced wind turbines or more. To replace those fuels with electricity in PHEVs might require under 400GW of wind. That 1000GW difference may represent an insurmountable obstacle for hydrogen as a GHG mitigation strategy—especially since the US will need several hundreds of gigawatts of wind and other zero-carbon power sources in 2050 just to sharply reduce GHG emissions in the electricity sector.

Related Links:

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Would You Like Carbon Insurance With That Latte?

California is planning to invest millions to support the rollout of new hydrogen fueling stations. Pictured here is a station near Los Angeles Int'l Airport that was built by a partnership that included BP, Praxair and LAX.Courtesy Hydrogen Assn.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu may want to slam the brakes on future hydrogen funding, but California will continue to pay its own way down the Hydrogen Highway, infuriating electric vehicle advocates in particular.

Obama's top energy official cut more than $100 million slated for hydrogen fuel-cell research from next year's federal budget, arguing that in tough times, tough choices had to be made. His department will allocate nearly $800 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for advanced biofuels research and commercial-scale biorefinery projects, part of his area of expertise at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory before he joined the Obama administration.

In California, however, state lawmakers and regulators are handing out more money for hydrogen projects. Shell Oil, for example, will receive nearly $2 million in state funds to help build a hydrogen pump at a gas station near a swank Newport Beach country club and high end shopping mall. The pump will service a few dozen cars. State officials and hydrogen backers say it is a small but key step forward in solving the nation's energy and environmental woes. An additional $5 million in tax dollars will help build hydrogen fueling pumps near UCLA's campus, San Francisco Airport, and at the foot of wealthy southern California coastal communities.

Despite the state's massive budget woes, officials also approved another $120 million in alternative fuel expenditures, paid for with revenue generated from fees of about $10 recently tacked onto the costs of renewing a driver's registration. Hydrogen and electric plug-in technologies will both fare well, getting an estimated $40 million and $46 million respectively from the state.

But electric vehicle advocates said even those expenditures prove their point: According to the California Energy Commission, it will cost $40 million to build 11 hydrogen fueling stations, compared to just $12 million cost to build 6,500 EV charging stations.

Critics of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) much ballyhooed "Hydrogen Highway" program, unveiled in 2004, say the hydrogen funding is the latest outrage in a doomed and costly effort to convert drivers in the nation's most populous state to a still unproven replacement for gasoline. California is reeling from a potential $20 billion budget shortfall, but critics say oil companies and car manufacturers will continue to be prime beneficiaries of costly, state-funded hydrogen boondoggles.

By contrast, Chu's announcement left them dancing metaphorically on hydrogen's grave.

"California is pouring good money after bad down the hydrogen rat hole, at a time when we can least afford it. They're spending taxpayer dollars for a technology that doesn't work, and I object," said Paul Scott, vice president of Plug In America, an electric vehicle advocacy group. He was far happier with Chu's decision to cut off funding for hydrogen fuel research in next year's federal budget. "Listen closely ... that sound you hear is the banging of the final nail in the fuel cell coffin. Sweet music to our ears," he wrote in an e-mail.

Jay Friedland, also of Plug In America, said studies had shown it takes four times as much funding to build and fuel a hydrogen vehicle as an EV car. Chu appeared to echo that sentiment, joining fellow scientists, engineers and policymakers in questioning the commercial viability of creating clean hydrogen fuel on a broad scale any time soon.

But boosters retort that Chu erred, and they will look to Congress to rectify that error.

California air board staff and hydrogen advocates said the latest state spending was a critical long-term investment. Hydrogen is the least polluting vehicle fuel on earth, they say, and continued funding now will pay off by 2050 in sharply reduced greenhouse gases and other air pollution, as well as new jobs. Most important, it is vital to keep funding a mixture of possible fuel options until it becomes clear which is truly commercially viable.

They insist other studies have shown that hydrogen has as good a chance as battery powered cars.

"Steve is making a major mistake on several fronts," said Schwarzenegger's longtime environment adviser Terry Tamminen in an email. "First, many automakers that are heavily invested in hydrogen ... were not consulted on this decision, showing that our new Secretary could use some help with stakeholder outreach and diplomacy at the very least."

As for California's spending, he wrote, "I think taxpayer dollars earmarked for developing new/clean technologies are very appropriate… in bad times, we see even more clearly the cost of failure to invest in this important infrastructure. GM is dying at great cost to taxpayers; hundreds of billions of subsidies…to oil companies are essentially wasted. By contrast, when we supported development of high tech, we ended up with Silicon Valley and the trillions of dollars that has delivered to CA and the US in terms of jobs and taxes. You be the judge!"

California air board chair Mary Nichols, who has repeatedly sought to defuse competition between competing alternative fuel advocates, wrote to Chu on April 1 and copied the letter to Obama environmental adviser Carol Browner, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson and White House Council on Environmental Quality chair Nancy Sutley, begging for continued hydrogen fuel cell funding as part of broad-range backing.

"Today it is not possible to know which technologies will be the market winners, but given that our global climate and future mobility are at stake, we must pursue all promising options. Fuel cell vehicles, with their potential to provide the range, high efficiency, rapid refueling, and performance consumers expect while achieving zero tailpipe emissions and dramatically reduced greenhouse gas emissions, are one of these options," she wrote.

Nichols noted hydrogen fuel cells were also "unique in their ability" to potentially power other current high polluters such as ships, locomotives and scooters. In a statement, she praised the state's latest expenditures.

"Hydrogen is one of the many fuels in California's future. But we need to cultivate the industry's early growth. This grant money will nurture a burgeoning technology that will provide jobs, invigorate our economy, and provide the state with clean power."

Anthony Eggert, Nichols' science and technology adviser, said late Tuesday that state officials were "puzzled' by Chu's decision, and that it would "obviously be a blow" to continued hydrogen technology development. He said the agency and a consortium of state fuel cell backers would push Congress to restore hydrogen funding in the energy department's final budget.

Asked for comment about Californians' pleas and criticisms, Chu's deputy press secretary, Tiffany Edwards, said in an email, "The President's 2010 Budget seeks to usher in a new era of responsibility -- an era in which we not only do what we must to save and create new jobs and lift our economy out of recession, but in which we also lay a new foundation for long-term growth and prosperity. The President and Secretary Chu are focused on investing in renewable sources of energy so that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and become the world leader in the new clean energy economy. Change is never easy, but we must use our resources wisely in the short term if we are to transform the way we use and produce energy in the long term."

As for California's expenditures during tough times, Gerhard Achtelik, manager of the air board's Zero Emissions Vehicle program, noted that it took a century and lots of money to build gas stations, as well. Explaining the latest round of California funding, he said in many cases it was matching money.

Shell was the highest bidder in an open process, he said, and will spend more of its own money than any other applicant. Shell's project could also create hydrogen onsite, using a promising natural gas steam reformation system.

Achtelik said it was crucial to continue to fund a broad range of alternative fuel technologies, because while electric plug-ins and hybrid vehicles might be market-ready sooner, hydrogen-fueled vehicles would emit no pollutants, a giant step in helping the state meet its mandate to slash greenhouse gases and clear Los Angeles and the Central Valley's still polluted air in coming decades. Critics of EVs note that plug in vehicles, by contrast, have a long way to go as well, because much electric power still comes from highly polluting coal plants.

Electric vehicle advocates dispute that, saying their cars can be plugged in at night in homeowners' garages, to take advantage of burgeoning solar, wind and other renewable sources during off hours.

Part of the debate, like an old-fashioned schoolyard fight, reflects intensely personal differences about whose car is better. That schism has erupted repeatedly over the years between hydrogen and EV fans, with each side arguing their fuel is the one that will win out. Of late, EVs have been winning key laps. In addition to Chu's decision, President Obama toured an EV test site in Southern California this spring, and has pledged to get a million plug-in cars on the road. But others say the wheels are not off hydrogen yet.

Tamminen, who drives a hydrogen-fueled Honda Clarity, said in an email that contrary to press reports, hydrogen fueled cars are "real and here right now ... I refuel at the Shell station on Santa Monica Blvd…and have driven the car all over CA with no problem."

Noting that there are now 30 hydrogen stations in the state, he boasted, "I drive 250 miles and spend 5 minutes to refuel, while my friends with Teslas drive 120 miles and spend 4 hours recharging."

He added that EVs "suffer from lugging around half a ton of batteries," making the vehicles less efficient, and concluded, "May the best car win!"

But Scott, who drives one of the original Toyota electric vehicles featured in "Who Killed The Electric Car?" documentary, countered that he plugs his car into his solar powered Santa Monica home each night, and goes an effortless 150 miles or more on a single charge.

He said compressed hydrogen fuel, by contrast, is often trucked in by diesel spewing trucks to the few stations that do exist wiping out any clean air gains. He said that new, lighter batteries are being tested for EV cars, and that tens of thousands of electric vehicles could quickly be on the street. In fact, he noted, the filmmakers who shot the original documentary about how California's air board decimated the original EV fleets are hard at work on a sequel: "The Revenge of the Electric Car."

Next Page: Watch two videos about California's hydrogen dreams >>>

<<< Back to first page of this article

Video 1: Terry Tamminen addresses the California Hydrogen Business Council discussing his experience with the Honda FCX and California's Hydrogen Highway.

Video 2: A tour of the California FuelCell Partnership testing facility and look at how hydrogen fuel cell cars are fueled.

<<< Back to first page of this article

Related Links:

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

A Penny Saved Is…

Photo by Sara Barz.

Last Thursday, the UK government announced it would offer British citizens subsidies of 2,000-5,000 pounds ($2,900-7,500) for electric vehicles. To facilitate the adoption of electric vehicles, the government will set aside 20 million pounds ($30 million) to invest in electric-vehicle charging stations in city centers and high-traffic regions.

This is welcome news for many enviros and electric car manufacturers who lobbied hard to include electric-vehicle subsidies in the U.K.'s green recovery plan.  But from the perspective of U.S.-U.K. relations, doesn't it seem a little like an anything-you-can-do-I-can-do-better gesture? President Obama announces a plug-in hybrid tax credit of $2,500-7,500, and two months later the Brits see us and up the ante with EVs. Maybe Gordon Brown is still miffed about the DVDs...

In other green auto news ...

• The EPA found that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a danger to the public and need to be regulated. Considering the automotive sector accounts for 20 percent of GHGs, the struggling industry will almost certainly be targeted.

Dave McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said in a release that the automakers are willing to work with Obama, but he added one dig with respect to their distaste of multiple emissions standards: "We are hopeful that the Obama Administration can find ways to bridge state and federal concerns, and move all stakeholders towards an aggressive, national, fuel economy/greenhouse gas emissions program administered by the federal government."

• What do you get when you combine a Vespa with an old VW bus? A Thai motorized hauling tricycle that will soon be carrying goods and people around the Americaninterstate system. Tuk Tuk North America just announced it has received DOT and EPA approval to bring its 55-mpg, three-wheeled scooter-van (scootan? vanooter?) to the U.S.

• When it comes to clean vehicle R&D, the Obama administration has little patience with the Chevrolet Volt, but it is more than willing to throw $41.9 million at hydrogen R&D.

• Chrysler's restructuring plan indicates that the Dodge Circuit will be the company's first EV vehicle in production.

• Amory Lovins' research organization, the Rocky Mountain Institute, held a three-day design confab on improving the efficiency of long-haul trucking.  Increases in transportation-sector GHGs can largely be attributed to the trucking industry, but there are many technological and regulatory obstacles -- 14, according to RMI -- that get in the way of improving efficiency.

• According to the New York Times style section, we should all go (like the) Dutch, and accessorize for the Great Downturn with a "glossy black Dutch bicycle."

Related Links:

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Honda FCX Clarity.Photo courtesy of the New York International Auto Show.Is the Honda FCX Clarity really the world's greenest car? According to the world's leading automotive journalists, it is. Thursday morning they gave the hydrogen-fueled Clarity the World Green Car award at the New York auto show.

But at my table, after the award was announced, there was a collective response of, huh?

Auto show awards can often serve more for PR purposes than as actual testaments of a vehicle's merit, but it was still a surprise when the hydrogen-fueled Clarity bested the electric Mitsubishi iMiev and the super fuel-efficient Toyota iQ.  The award is not without merit; the Clarity is a zero tailpipe emissions vehicle. But considering the fossil-fuel intensive process required just to bring hydrogen to a car, the fuel is far from "green."

With the exception of the award for Honda, hydrogen cut a low profile in New York auto show. Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles were on display, but they were significantly underplayed in comparison to the showy displays of Dodge Circuit EV or even the electric Mini.  A Newsweek-sponsored panel on automotives of the future played lip service to hydrogen, but emphasized the promise of plug-ins and EVs.  Similarly, the keynote speaker, Volkswagen USA president Stefan Jacoby, outlined everything but hydrogen -- such as the efficiency of the clean diesel engine, hybrid technology, and second generation biofuels.  Only when pressed by a questioner did Jacoby acknowledge that hydrogen is one of the myriad alternatives automakers are researching.

So as hydrogen's star fades, why would journalists want to reinforce it by celebrating the Honda FCX Clarity? Were the auto show judges in question -- bloggers and MSM writers -- really off the mark?

To be considered for the 2009 World Green Car award, the vehicle needed to be introduced for sales somewhere in the world during 2008 and feature all new significantly revised technology.  For more info, visit the World Car of the Year Awards website.

Related Links:

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Related Links:

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Would You Like Carbon Insurance With That Latte?

Related Links:

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Would You Like Carbon Insurance With That Latte?

Related Links:

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Would You Like Carbon Insurance With That Latte?

Related Links:

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Clean energy opportunities

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Related Links:

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

‘Heretic’ battles straw man

Related Links:

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Would You Like Carbon Insurance With That Latte?

Related Links:

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Would You Like Carbon Insurance With That Latte?

Related Links:

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Would You Like Carbon Insurance With That Latte?

Related Links:

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

‘Heretic’ battles straw man

Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix

Related Links:

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Would You Like Carbon Insurance With That Latte?

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets

If REDD can’t save this….

Climate-news poem: Tck, tck, tck edition

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Cast your vote for the best climate journalism

The science behind a climate headline

Honda Motor Co.'s hydrogen-powered FCX Clarity rolled off the line Monday and will be leased to high rollers in California. The Clarity -- an update of Honda's original FCX, a handful of which were leased in 2005 -- runs on hydrogen and electricity, emits only water, and is twice as fuel-efficient as a gas-electric hybrid. Actresses Laura Harris and Jamie Lee Curtis, filmmaker Christopher Guest, and Little Miss Sunshine producer Ron Yerxa will be among those leasing the Clarity this year; Honda hopes to lease 200 of the cars within three years and, if all goes well, have them mass-produced within a decade. All going well will mean a significant uptick in hydrogen-fueling infrastructure: fill-up stations are currently few and far between (if existent at all) in most of the country.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

A plane powered by hydrogen fuel cells made three successful test flights earlier this year, Boeing officials announced Thursday. The propeller-driven two-seater, carrying passengers, climbed to 3,300 feet on the power of lithium batteries, then cruised at 60 miles per hour for about 20 minutes powered solely by fuel cells. Sounds like they've got the Wright stuff! (Ooh, that was bad even for us. Sorry.)

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Despite California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's executive order four years ago that "hundreds of hydrogen fueling stations" be built in the state, nary a station has been built under the program. Depending on whom you ask, the blame for the sputtering "hydrogen highway" lies with: energy companies and utilities, for not stepping forward to take state matching money to build stations; automakers, for not making enough hydrogen fuel cell cars; Democratic lawmakers, for mandating that the hydrogen be produced in a way that reduces greenhouse gases overall; Schwarzenegger, for under-researching and over-promising; and plain old complex bureaucracy. Mary Nichols, chair of the state Air Resources Board, is still optimistic that 50 to 100 stations will be built under the problem by 2015. If so, that will be handy for the drivers of the 175 hydrogen vehicles running in California, but most experts expect that general retail of the vehicles is at least a decade out.

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

Related Links:

General Motors to start repaying government loans

Maryland county draws a “car-free blueprint for growth”

Would You Like Carbon Insurance With That Latte?