Subscription Center
May 8, 2009 05:00 PM | 43
In the newly released budget, the U.S. Department of Energy cuts $100 million from the hydrogen fuel cell program in fiscal year 2010 and transforms its name to "fuel cell technologies." Hydrogen, of course, is just the fuel of a fuel cell—a device that recombines hydrogen and oxygen to produce water and electrical current. Still, the name change distances the Obama administration from the "hydrogen economy" goals of their predecessors.
"We asked ourselves, 'Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will convert to a hydrogen car economy?' The answer, we felt, was 'No,'" said energy secretary Steven Chu in a briefing on the budget for reporters yesterday, citing the need for better fuel cells and a near complete lack of infrastructure.
The 2010 budget now gives some $68 million for ongoing fuel cell research, primarily focused on the devices serving in buildings and other applications, rather than cars, compared to $168 million for the hydrogen program in 2009.
The cut is fine with fuel cell component-maker BASF, which opened a new facility to manufacture membranes for high-temperature fuel cells in Somerset, N.J. this Wednesday—the 72nd anniversary of the Hindenburg disaster. The company is doing enough business in such fuel cells for backup electricity, for example, that it makes sense, according to spokesman Daniel Pepitone.
Many skyscrapers—and even homes—have such fuel cells today, but the prototype cars on the road—ranging from GM's fuel cell Chevy Equinox to BMW's hydrogen-burning 7 Series sedan—have proved too expensive so far to fulfill the Bush administration's dreams of a hydrogen car economy. Of course, the Bush administration also cancelled one of the centerpieces of said hydrogen economy—the FutureGen power plant that would have generated hydrogen (as well as eliminating carbon dioxide emissions)—with what turned out to be some bad math back in February 2008. Chu also said he would resuscitate that effort—for the CO2 component.
And despite more than 120 hydrogen stations nationwide—including those along a much-vaunted "Hydrogen Highway" in California—the filling stations, hydrogen-makers and other infrastructure to support such vehicles has been few and far between.
Image: The membrane electrode units pictured here are where the chemical reactions that produce energy from hydrogen take place. Courtesy of BASF
Tags:
alternative energy,
hydrogen economy,
steven chu,
obama,
hydrogen,
alternative fuel,
bush,
futuregen,
hydrogen car
More News Blog:
Next: H1N1 hullabaloo: Overreaction or prudent caution?
Previous: NASA, running out of gas, calls for more plutonium to continue its star trek
See what we're tweeting about
Horganism New essay on Thomas Nagel's anti-materialist "Mind and Cosmos," plus mine: http://t.co/AgG1ikLMhC http://t.co/W1qDxNezZC
notscientific #SciLogs Weekly Roundup: Charles Darwin, Biocalculator, Infotainment, Woman Scientist, National Champion For Science http://t.co/gnfWhgKaHF
TetZoo #Rio #pterosaur: some talk highlights: Unwin on Darwinopterus ontogeny, Bennett on rebuttal to Nesbitt & Hone, Costa on anurognathid tails..
Deadline: Jun 29 2013
Reward: $7,000 USD
The Seeker for this Challenge desires proposals for chemical methods that could rapidly degrade a dilute aqueous solution
Deadline: Jul 30 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Seeker desires a method for producing pseudoephedrine products in such a way that it will be extremely difficult for clandestine che
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
43 Comments
Add CommentRest in peace? hrmph. Good riddance, I say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Chu has an authentic thinking cap, and I'm glad his word has been enacted as policy.
Please note the partial idiocy of this decision. Why are we allowing the Japanese to get ahead again? Why? Below is the URL of a Reuters story about a car going into production in Japan that RUNS ON WATER. It's an EXISTING TECHNOLOGY. Fuel cells that convert sea and fresh water into energy have been available for years. I guess that it is simply too disruptive for even Mr. Change to pull off.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason I say partial idiocy is because since it is an existing technology it doesn't need research it needs production. Oh look! Over there Mr. Change! You have nearly direct control over a couple of car companies. Imagine the impact. The cost of shipping a tomato, car, whatever, would drop considerably. Globalization would become much greener. Global productivity would increase. You could afford to drive your car across the country with the kids. I understand that there is considerable resistance from our buddies in the oil biz, but this is the time to act for our kids environment, our personal wealth, and especially our national security.
Below is the URL for a fuel cell that runs on water. It is being put into production to power a car by Genepax of Japan. I guess the Japanese have the distinct advantage of not having major oil companies running their gov.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561
Oh gee ... I can't say I didn't see this coming. I'll be succinct: that car from Genepax is a steaming pile of hoax. The video proclaims it can run at 80kph for 90 minutes on a tank of water with no external inputs. Ha! To do what is being advertised would violate the first and/or the second laws of thermodynamics. They are lying; most "water-fueled" vehicles have been investment frauds.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm proud of our current federal administration for not falling for bogus schemes - unfortunately, that's more than I can say for a disturbingly large number of people and groups lately. Knowledge and critical thinking appears on the wane.
Actually, I was expecting postings from fanatical hawkers of the more widespread "HHO" devices. Those are, after all, proven in thousands of installations. :p
Wanting to be part of the solution, I shouldn't let my Here, I'll even help you further your education by referring you to a video from the same source of information that reported on the "Genepax" car:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=85239&videoChannel=1
The reporter and scientist were much, much nicer than I would have been.
NOT SO QUICK!! NASA has spent billions on fuel cells and many more billions have been spent by researchers globally. The result - nothing, not even one break-through. However, this doesnt mean hydrogen isnt the best fuel , it just means an engine which fully utilizes the power of hydrogen isnt generally know. That includes internal combustion by the way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real technical break-through though may have just been made by the ZED engine research team. Their CEO was on national radio last Sunday -- and like Chu he is from Berkeley. ZED is still under the radar, but what is known is that Greenberg Traurig of Washington, D.C. just finished the patents, and the #1 person of the Top 50 in the world who can change the world (Guardian newspaper - London) named Terry Tamminen (former head of California EPA) just met with the zedpower executive in Canada. Apparently the ZED engine packs 2.5-3.0 horsepower per cubic inch displacement which beats gasoline performance, and its fully scalable to any size vehicle, something electric will never do. Do your research - dig deep. Theres more to this story than meets the eye. For those in the know, apparently the best is yet to come.
Yes, so quick.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the narrowest of views, hydrogen is a swell fuel what with it's "zero emissions" and all. But there are no pools of ready-to-use hydrogen anywhere on this planet ... so it must be made first. Bonds must be broken, and that takes energy. Any attempt to use the created hydrogen as the power source to make more hydrogen is doomed to fail. Take a look at that system diagram zedpower presents. If you can't see the fundamental flaw, look again. Think. "Over-unity" does not and will not exist, no matter how hard one wishes.
The zedpower website trumpets that hydrogen "can be readily produced by numerous cost effective means, but primary through the electrolysis of water". The statement is wholly dependent on what you mean by "cost effective". Regardless of definition, it always takes more energy to create than can be recovered. Period. The statement only means that some processes lose less than others, but the result is always the same: energy output is always less than energy input.
The zedpower website system diagram shows simple, electrically driven electrolysis. Immediately below the diagram, though, it makes mention of a catalytic method patented by Argonne National Lab (#6468499, filed in 2000, by the way). Look ma, no electricity! But wait, the water must be upwards of 2000 degrees F. That requires a whole lot of energy. Water thermally dissociates at those temperatures. This patent is for the effective separation of the resulting dissociation species. It still takes a lot, and excess, amounts of energy to accomplish the dissociation.
Just what is zedpower's "advanced, patented design"? The system diagrammed and promoted is just ignorant drivel, if not indicative of an outright scam.
Always trying to be helpful, I have created an enhanced version of their ground-breaking system for even higher efficiency and hereby place it in the public domain for the good of all. The high points are thus: 1) The "generator" output is actually mains input, call it "Grid Power" instead of "Power to Grid" to hide the input through ambiguity, 2) Put a motor where "generator" is shown, but keep it labeled the same, 3) Use the hydrogen and oxygen to help drive the turbine along with mains power, 4) Eliminate the entire helium loop, and 5) Reclaim the water being created from combustion to feed "make up water" tank. Be sure to use only a voltmeter on the "Grid Power" to show all that excess electricity being made! Of course, the car will have to have a long extension cord to keep it running.
The future is electricity- the infrastructure is already in place.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe first paragraph of this story quotes Dr. Chu as saying we asked ourselves . . . about the best auto technology. How true this is, apparently. Word is Dr. Chu has so far declined to meet with General Motors CEO or chief of research. Given that the Obama Administration has fired the CEO and driven the company to the brink of bankruptcy, one would think he would have consulted with the leaing US auto technology company before embracing batteries so exclusively. I guess Dr. Chu feels he knows best.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHondas new FCV is being offered in California today for lease, 60% efficient, EPA rated 72 MPG, comparable to the Accord, Malibu and Camry in creature comforts and interior room. Toyotas vehicle gets well over 400 miles per tank. Daimler plans 100,000 units a year within a few years.
Congress can correct the mistake. Let's hope they bring Dr. Chu to his senses.
This is what happens when you appoint an expert in his field to oversee government programs. Next thing you know, useless boondoggles are being cut and rational decisions are being made. This absolutely must be stopped or government might start *shudder* working.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy favor fuel cells over simple combustion of hydrogen gas?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs not electrolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen one of the simplest procedures that exists?
Combustion engines burning gas(es) are hardly unheard of.... including hydrogen.
The higher efficiencies of fuel cells may have been required for space exploration but with an 2/3s of the molecules in the ocean as fuel you don't need high efficiency.
Things like corrosiveness and such certainly are handleable by materials engineers.
Maybe we are just hearing the noise from competing research labs looking for funding... interesting as the research might be...perhaps it can go on the back burner if we are broke.... and we are.
Good for spacecraft, bad for motor cars. R.I.P. Respectfully, Gortenbull
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydrogen fuel was always a stupid idea. The only reason they pursued it was because they didn't want to give up the whole service station and overly complex engine model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElectricity makes a thousands times more sense.
Hydrogen and fuel cells looked like a good idea a decade or two ago, but with advances in battery tech (and few in fuel cells) it fell behind. The total efficiency of electrolysis, storage/transport of hydrogen and running a fuel cell is *much* worse than using the electric grid (which needs some upgrades for widespread use) and batteries. Thank goodness Steven Chu knows what he's talking about. Now let's hope we'll become as rational about biofuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Albert Gortenbull and Ralf123 have it right. Chu knows what he is doing. Hydrogen transport is a nightmare. It is used to check leaks in gas lines. The small molecule finds the smallest crack. Energy used in transport and compression of hydrogen to a usable quantity along with the 50 to 60% efficiency of the fuel cell will keep hydrogen in the research phase well into the future. It should go the way of corn ethanol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisT. Boone is on the right track.
For simple people Hydrogen is a simply wonderful fuel that would simply solve all of the worlds transportation fuel and enviromental problems.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those of us that have to develop real solutions, Hydrogen is a nightmare to deal with, to create,store, and transport. And why do it? It's not energy efficient to create it. Only a simple person would trade a large amount of quality,and expensive, energy (electricity) for a small amount of a hard to deal with combustion fuel. In the real world hydrogen is only used when special needs, far outweigh the draw backs.
My respect for President Obama just jumped up a notch. Ethanol is a terrible choice for a vehicle fuel and hydrogen is even worse. Maybe there is some common sense starting to prevail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy respect for President Obama just jumped up another notch. He is now questioning the EPA's insane wish to control CO2 emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood job. Hydrogen is not the answer, at least for cars. The future of automobiles is already being produced with the Tesla. New quick charge batteries and lower prices are coming soon. Energy companies don't want it, because they can't figure out how to over charge you for 25 cents worth of electricity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMS. Patty : So there is no cheap source of hydrogen? Think again : Wood pyrolysis produces free hydrogen, as well as biochar to improve soils. France ran cars on hydrogen in this way until the fifties. For news on hydrogen pyrolysis, see www.Eprida.com . Of course you wouldn't use such cars for short trips in cities, but the longer the distance, the better the efficiency. And whats a $100million compared to the car firm bail-outs?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it economical to design small combination wind or solar generator combined with a hydrogen generator that could produce hydrogen at a fuel station? If so each station could produce its own fuel and solve the problem of transporting it for vehicle fuel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it economically feasible to combine a small solar or wind generator with a hydrogen generator at a fuel station level? This would solve the problem of transporting hydrogen. This concept would require mass production to serve all the fuel stations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdanbaris; why do you want to use a (very expensive) small solar or wind generator to produce and compress hydrogen to replace relatively cheap motor fuel?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe relative costs of energy is the common denominator in the costs of all things. If you artifically raise the cost of coal in the US you raise the price of tea in China and the cost of solar panels in Ohio. Hydrogen is a poor, dangerous and expensive substitute for any liquid fuel, even LP or LNG.
An unusually well informed group of posters! (Except for the bozos who talk about cars "running on water.")
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChu's indeed a bright guy and well qualified, too. His decision to dump the hydrogen fuel program is long overdue. Hydrogen is difficult to store and transport efficiently and safely. Leakage is a huge and so far poorly resolved problem, as is safety. Do any of you know how to detect a hydrogen flame? It's colorless! Safety inspectors in facilities that use pressurized hydrogen carry brooms, which burst into visible flame, when they're stuck into burning hydrogen.
As for me, I have no desire to drive around on top of a tank of highly pressurized, highly explosive gas!
The money that would have been wasted trying to establish a hydrogen fuel economy would be much better spent on developing more efficient high capacity batteries!
ptguru:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe issue "raising the price of coal in the US" as you put it is a bit more perverse. By raising the price of coal in the US, you drop the US demand and put Americans out of work. Other coal producing countries then ship their coal to where the price is better, ie. China. (This happens all the time with oil and natural gas, tankers are often redirected even once they've reached their original destination port). With the increase in supply to China or other foreign countries, coal use will climb as it is now even cheaper.
So you have the perverse situation whereby the US imposes a carbon tax on itself, loses jobs and other countries reap the reward and burn even more coal.
Then to counteract that, you have to place a"carbon tax" levy on foreign goods coming in from countries that are not compliant.
And you're left with the even more perverse situation whereby the US government collects carbon taxes both from it's own citizens, many who are now unemployed and from foreign imported goods, which drives the price of these goods up to the recently unemployed American workers. So the government double dips on taxes. Is there any wonder why the government is in favor of this?
In the mean time, the foreign countries continue to dump massive amounts of real pollution (CO2 doesn't count as it is not a pollutant) into the air because they can only afford to use the cheapest possible fuels, and must cut their costs to offset the US tax levy. Either that or file paperwork with the US showing compliance.
And in countries such as China where people are routinely executed, oppressed, abused, toxins are added to paint and baby food and corruption is a way of life do you really believe that they would not falsify paperwork to stay onside with US trade laws?
Good Move Obama!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHydrogen Research Grants was just another Bush boondoggle for his cronies. There is no need to create Hydrogen Storage tanks and Pipelines to replace the Gasoline infrastructure.
Hydrogen can be made from water and electricity ON BOARD THE vehicle, or with a home generator.
You can see hundreds of home hydrogen generators on youtube.com.
Obama needs to cut the red tape that Oil Companies sponsored which prevents GE and Ballard Power from selling small home hydrogen units.
The Electric grid will do the distribution. And many folks will generate power locally with Solar.
Obama needs to lift the Prohibition on the Sale of Hydrogen Vehicles!!
UC Davis and UC Irvine have had Toyota Hydrogen Hylanders on campus for FIVE Years.
LET THE PUBLIC BUY THEM NOW!
www.My-Representative.org
Your Article fails to Mention the Number One Hydrogen Fuel Cell Auto Manufacturer with 200 cars Leased to the Public
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/drive-fcx-clarity.aspx
is it feasible to combine a small solar or wind power generator to a hydrogen generator to be installed at thousands of fuel stations. This will eliminate the transporting of hydrogen, The technology is there there . economics?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the winner is the battery! But would we not feel better if this government pick of a winner would not just be based on "the need for better fuel cells and a complete lack of infrastructure."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs there not equally "a need for better batteries and a complete lack of electrical generating capacity to charge the same?"
And what about the lack of lithium. lanthanum and neodymium to manufacture the millions of batteries needed? Aside of becoming dependent on a monopolist like China, there is not near enough of the stuff available to meet the demand.
If we expect intermittent alternative energy sources like wind or thermal solar to ever play a large role, we need to maximize ways to store excess electricity when we do not need it. Hydrogen can be a practical tool since it can be produced by a simple process out of water and DC power and be be reconverted by fuel cells in cars or in stationary installations to DC power with high efficiency.
And the hydrogen production could easily happen at every gas station with wind and solar power delivered by a DC power grid and with water out of the faucet. No need for a complex infrastructure to transport hydrogen to the gas station. And to fill the hydrogen tank of a car at such a "gas" station would take no longer than filling it with gasoline. Try that trick with a battery.
So true Shoshin, as John Macain said "When you legislate you get many unintended consequences".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina is pushing very hard to get the developed nations to hobble themselves with carbon restrictions and give China an unrestricted industrial advantage as well as access to lower cost fuels.
No. GM brought itself to the brink of bankruptcy all by itself. It did not take any gov't control, interference, or takeover to do that. It took a CEO who was already the head of GM to do that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor something concerning thermodynamics, physicists like Steven Chu do know best. They certainly know better than any company which is motivated by profit to provide people with what they want, rather than what they need.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact remains that using electricity to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, then recombining them later in a fuel cell to create electricity, while more efficient than gasoline engines, is still less thermodynamically efficient than storing energy in batteries. Plus, hydrogen is difficult to store.
I suppose nobody remembers this guy...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://s594.photobucket.com/albums/tt30/baron2employ/?action=view¤t=WaterFuel.flv
http://hydrogentechnology.com.au/company.asp
He connected his converter to his car and it seemed to work for him although it was a hybrid fossil fuel and H20. Obviously we have the capability to create vehicles that run off of water there is just a hidden issue. Hmmmmm you think that maybe big oil could have the money backing to keep this technology from the hands of the consumer? What would they have to loose?????
Isn't it amazing that there are people who read Scientific American who rant about an amazing water powered engine?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(bmchenry) Before you blast someone on a blog you should review the links that were provided. Of course water isn't combustible. If you would have taken your time to copy and paste any of the links into your address bar you would see the water was placed into his generator that creates H2 gas. Then the generator was then connected directly to the fuel lines going to the injectors that provided the alternative fuel source. Now if you can fit an oil refinery into a car then I would say that a car can run off of oil. Now turn off your cartoons so you can review the links on my previous blog and thanks for your opinion on who you feel is eligible to read Scientific America.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a company that has made a product that will allow people to make their own hydrogen!! Maybe filling up at gas stations will soon be a thing of the past. Who wouldn't support a cleaner, cheaper, and more convenient power supply.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.switch2hydrogen.com/h2.htm
If you and I get it, why is it so difficult for our "best minds" to get it? Honestly, I am so tired of the "history and political science-majors" serving as "advisors" on economic or technical issues, all of which have a huge impact on our future! How do we fix this?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the process for obtaining hydrogen, a quantity of water is used and a quantity of hydrogen is obtained; later, this quantity of hydrogen is used like a fuel in a fuel cell and is obtained a quantity of water-is this quantity of water the same quantity used for obtained hydrogen (is a same quantity of water used and obtained?)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf.........The water on earth (including atmosphere) is always on a some quantity; the quantity of water is constant-maybe is a parameter of life; if the water is separate in oxygen and hydrogen, the hydrogen leave the earth and that quantity of water is missed, is lost. The system of earth life, try to complete the lost quantity of water-with the hydrogen contained in the ground and same plants, but, in case of massive use of water for obtain hydrogen, is possible to damage this system and, maybe, destroy the life. We have built systems for maintained life; such of system is based on self-regulation; the system, adjust entry proportions for maintained same exit proportions (feedback); the system can adjust these proportions as far as certain values; if the values are very big (massive), the system can not adjust him and is possible to destroy him. I think, the whole life is a multitude of systems and we can disturb them, maybe without restoration. Is that possible?
"Rest in peace? hrmph. Good riddance, I say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Chu has an authentic thinking cap, and I'm glad his word has been enacted as policy."
Agree, finally some sense instead of faith based nosnsens. Jesus would know it was nonsense. See http://tinyurl.com/hydrogenhoax and http://tinyurl.com/hydrogenknol
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=0615293913/recoverybydiscovA/ for the book "TWO CENTS PER MILE: Will Preident Obama Make it Happen WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN? By Nevres Cefo. "If NiMH batteries are being used so successfully, why are American manufacturers fixated on Li Ion batteries? Part of the reason is that petroleum company Chevron owns the patent for the Ovonics NiMH traction battery. Under the ruse of saying they have not had sufficiently convincing proposals brought to them, Chevron continues to deny licenses to any company proposing to manufacture new NiMH traction batteries." BECAUSE CHEVRON & THE OIL CARTEL HAVE THEIR GOOD INTENTION OF STOPPING AND SLOWING ANY REAL COMPETITION. THAT IS WHY THEY SUPPORTED THE FAKE ALTERNATIVE, THE HYDROGEN CAR HOAX.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy not transfer all the fuel cell work to NASA until there is any real efficient use on earth?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisheres an idea, how about obama stops the drone attacks on pakistan, we start to focus on the reason we're supposed to be over therw (for those who have forgotten it was to get the terrorists and HELP to install democracy) so far its like everyone wants to just go off what the goverment is willing to tell us and call it a day. hello people! our goverment does not care about us as individuals, they care about the numbers, pull your heads out of the sand and open your damn eyes! if a seventeen year old drop it is competent enough to understand this why the hell cant 'adults' and people who have an actual education??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisheres an idea to save money, how about obama stops the drone attacks on pakistan, we start to focus on the reason we're supposed to be over therw (for those who have forgotten it was to get the terrorists and HELP to install democracy) so far its like everyone wants to just go off what the goverment is willing to tell us and call it a day. hello people! our goverment does not care about us as individuals, they care about the numbers, pull your heads out of the sand and open your damn eyes! if a seventeen year old drop it is competent enough to understand this why the hell cant 'adults' and people who have an actual education??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this