I'll make you a deal. If you'll not send off topic posts anymore, then neither
will I.
If you are interested in the world's energy woes, read on. Otherwise, skip
this post with my sincerest apologies.
If you want to reply, please do, but do it directly to me, not on the AJ list.
I'll go back to quietly lurking now.
Jim
At 04:29 PM 6/11/01 -0700, you wrote:
>sorry for the continued grandstanding (well not that sorry I guess)... I
just got this, and several people
>showed interest before...
>Tell them you want to reverse the 30% cut in funding for renewable energy
projects, including the 48% cut in fuel >cell research.
Snip!!
Have you asked yourself the question, "Why has Bush cut R&D
expenditures?" I have.
Although I'm no energy expert, I came up with at least two possible
explanations:
a) Bush, like all conservatives, hates us and wants us dependent on foreign
oil forever. He wants $7 per gallon gas. He wants the economy in
shambles. He wants our kids to die of smog induced lung cancer. He's evil.
b) For some reason I'm not aware of, it made sense to reduce the hydrogen
fuels R&D expenditures.
I had some questions about hydrogen fuels. So, I went to www.google.com
and typed in "Hydrogen + Fuel + Research" to try to answer them.
My first question was, "What are hydrogen fuels and how would they be
used?". I found the answer at
http://www.georgetown.edu/sfs/programs/stia/students/osgood.htm. Basically,
hydrogen can be used in two ways to power an engine, directly as an
expolsive fuel or, secondly, through electro-chemical conversion to
electricity via a fuel cell. The electricity can then be used to power an
motor to do useful work, like move a car or turn on a light bulb or power a
computer.
Second, "Where does hydrogen come from?".
See http://www.eren.doe.gov/consumerinfo/refbriefs/a109.html for a complete
explanation, but to boil it down, from organic material. Water, oil
(yeppers, oil!), coal, decomposing vegatable matter and others. The big
problem is how to generate it economically, cleanly and safely. You can't
just pick up a lump of coal and magically have it turn into hydrogen. And
it sure won't go in the gas tank of your Volvo.
Third, "Why aren't we using it right now?".
The short answer is, because there aren't any hydrogen stations around the
corner. In other words, infrastructure. Hydrogen is expensive, hazardous
(remember the Hindenberg), and voluminous to transport and store. Just
one example, since it's lighter than air, how are you going to put it in
your car? Obviously, every last one of those gas stations out there will
need to be converted. Who's gonna pay for that? Federal tax dollars? How
long do you think it will take?
More, much more, than you wanted to know.
One of the first hits was a paper called "Blueprint for Hydrogen Fuel
Infrastructure Development" by J. Ohi of the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. The report details the findings of a project jointly sponsored
by DOE, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and the California
Energy Commission (CEC) and conducted in 2000 under President Clinton's
watch. It made pretty interesting reading. On page four you'll find this,
"The key finding of the workshop is encouraging: there are no technical
showstoppers to implementing a near-term hydrogen fuel infrastructure for
direct hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.There are, of course, engineering
development needs as well as codes and standards and other institutional
issues to resolve,but fundamentally the technologies required are
available. Furthermore, representatives of both the energy and auto
industries stated that they are technically capable of proceeding with
developing both the fuel infrastructure and the vehicle technologies needed
to meet near-term markets."
Bold text is his. I read in this that the basic research is done. The
thrust of the report is that the current need is for infrastructure design
and construction. (You can see it for yourself at
www.eren.doe.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/mp27770.pdf) Also, note particularly the
remark about the energy and auto industries.
Another: http://www.ohio.com/bj/business/2000/June/27/docs/011164.htm. To
quote the article, ``We're a long ways off from fuel cells being
economically feasible as a power source for automobiles,'' Smotkin said.
``You have to re-form other fuels into hydrogen, and there's a lot of
development still needed to make that economical.''
Again, the following two extracts from President Bush's energy proposal,
Cost For example, a Ford Crown Victoria that runs on compressed natural gas
costs about $4,000 more than its gasoline counterpart.
Refueling Infrastructure Refueling infrastructure is limited, which can
make refueling inconvenient and travel options difficult.
Travel Distance Ability to travel a long distance on a single volume of
fuel. Alternative fuels have an energy content lower than that of gasoline,
which means that AFVs cannot travel as far as traditional vehicles on a
single tank of fuel.
• General Motors, Ford, Daimler Chrysler, Texaco, BP/Amoco, and Shell are
collectively spending between $500 million and $1 billion dollars a year on
fuel cells, hydrogen storage, and infrastructure development for passenger
vehicles. Ongoing bus demonstrations in the United States and Europe are
expected to commercialize fuel cell power hydrogen buses in the next five
years.
Or, to quote another article,
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010605/detu002.html,
The opportunity is alluring. Fuel cells (FC) offer a virtually pollution-
free source of power, which has generated significant interest by a number
of companies hoping to benefit from this opportunity. These companies are
developing products for three broad markets: portable communications (e.g.,
laptop computers, cell phones); stationary (e.g., residential back-up,
electric utility grid support, hospitals); and transportation (e.g., fork
lift trucks, passenger vehicles, buses).
The most difficult among the 12 challenges are low-cost infrastructure,
range and power density. Other challenges include cost reduction, component
integration complexity and safety issues, to name a few.
Finally, to quote the original article that you posted,
http://www.hfcletter.com/letter/may01/,
But the biggest winner in terms of percentage gains is clean coal
technology, something which could be of benefit to hydrogen production and
carbon dioxide emission reductions. Clean coal will r&d funding increase
from the current measly $8.98 million to $82 million, a whopping 813.1%
The grand total budget request for the entire Energy Department increased
slightly from the current $16.669 billion appropriation to a request for
$19.213 billion. Details: DoE web site, http://www.energy.gov/.
In other words, President Bush has not cut one penny from the DOE
budget. He's increased it!! Let me repeat that; THE DOE BUDGET WENT UP,
NOT DOWN. Instead, he's taking the limited amount of tax dollars at his
disposal and transferring it to where it will do the most good!
My point is that the R&D for using hydrogen appears to be done or at least
well within the abilities of industry. What's needed now is the means of
producing, transporting and storing hydrogen cleanly and safely. Notice
the clean coal research. Know who has the most coal deposits in the entire
world? Yep, the good ol USA. If you want to see lower costs and cleaner
energy, clean coal research is the place to put your money.
One final point about how tax dollars are spent
If, as Vice President Chaney says, you could buy a hydrogen powered car for
about $4,000 more than a gas powered car and drive it polution free for
about the same as operating costs of gas, would you do it? Yeah, me
too. So, the demand for hydrogen power is there. If there is one thing
you know, where there's demand some greedy capitalist will create the
supply. And that's exactly what's happening.
If you believe what you read in the financial news,
http://www.h2fc.com/1News.html has hundreds of articles about the rosy
future of investing in companies developing commercial hydrogen fueled
vehicles, power plants and hydrogen production facilities. Hundreds of
them! Why? Because they see the potential profits to be made.
So back to the original question. Why would anyone, including W. Bush,
want to spend more tax dollars to develop hydrogen fuel cells when we can
already do it? Why not develop the infrastucture to get hydrogen to the
cars? And why spend tax dollars for that when so many companies and
investors (me included) are more than willing to do it out of their own
pockets?
Bottom line. You're going to have hydrogen power in 4-8 years. Even if
the evil conservatives don't spend my tax money like you want them to.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jun 13 2001 - 03:11:07 CEST