Raise the Federal gas tax to fund hydrogen research. Good idea or bad idea?
According to Metaldyne Corp. chairman and CEO Tim Leuliette, the federal gasoline tax should be raised to fund hydrogen technology as an alternative fuel. "Gasoline is too cheap in America," said Leuliette. He went on to claim that hydrogen makes the most sense as an alternative to gasoline, but needs much more development, meaning more money. Instead of the private sector spending the money on the development costs, he suggests that Washington should help foot the bill. He blames the government for not having a national energy policy, as most countries do. He continued by suggesting that the price of gas be set by the government, making the tax fluctuate as the price of oil does.
According to Nancy Gioia, director of sustainable mobility technologies and hybrid vehicle programs at Ford, hydrogen is not a shoe-in for our energy needs. She said it takes a great deal of energy to extract hydrogen -- energy that might be better utilized by other technologies like plug-in hybrids.
Tim Leuliette's suggestions are certainly not universal in appeal. Some agree to rase the gas tax, some disagree. What do you think? Should the government set the price of gas and raise the gas tax? What, or whom, will that help or harm? And, possibly just as important, will it drive the market for a sustainable, renewable fuel here in the States?
I am of the opinion that Leuliette is wrong on some points. I don't believe that hydrogen is the most viable alternative to gasoline, at least not yet. Time will tell if the so called "hydrogen economy" becomes a hydrogen reality. At this time, in my opinion, electric cars are the current (ha-ha) and the near future. If anything, we should be investing more heavily in that. I will stop short of giving an opinion on his thoughts on Washington's involvement, but you don't have to. If you have an opinion, why not share it here?
[Source: Detroit News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Xoham 2:19PM (1/17/2007)
It has been demonstrated time and again that Hydrogen is not a fuel source. You have to produce it, compress it, transport it, and all the while use up energy. You do much better with electricity and batteries.
Here's a link to a presentation. Do some more reading on hydrogen and you will see it is a bad idea. We need our money in solar, wind, tidal, hydro, geothermal, batteries, ultracapacitors, and anything that doesn't spend gobs of dirty energy to produce a fuel.
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
http://www.efcf.com/reports/ for related reports.
Note that non-hydrogen not-for-automobile fuel cells may have some useful application, but not hydrogen. Stop now.
Reply
magnumpc 2:23PM (1/17/2007)
I agree with Xoham in that hydrogen is not a fuel source but a energy storage medium.
I would rather see the money and effort put into superior batter technology including nano-technology-based ultracapacitors for use in electric cars.
Reply
Roy Harvie 2:31PM (1/17/2007)
The "Hydrogen Economy" will be a disaster. Don't waste any money on it. Another convincing presentation http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/symposium/presentations/eberhard.pdf
Reply
Tim 2:52PM (1/17/2007)
Don't hold your breath! (Green Joke) Anyway… Yes, increased fuel prices have forced new technologies and conservation but increases in fuel prices are also considered to be a burden on the “working poor.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor These “working poor” folks vote in greater numbers than the environment and the politicians can’t see past the next election. Don't even get me started on the lunatic "Hydrogen Economy." http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h_scam.htm Better batteries… YES. More renewable (solar, hydro, Wind) electricity, YES. More waste based biofuels, YES. More sustainable biofuels like Algae Biodiesel, YES.
About storing electricity in Hydrogen… Alec Brooks, a REAL expert on the subject says "… Fuel cell vehicles consume 4x the amount of electricity per mile than BEVs…” http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/01/12/listen-to-alec-brooks-presentation-at-the-california-air-resourc/ This report is well worth listening to. Alec actually coined the term "vehicle to grid" (V2G) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_to_grid Plus we are 20-50 years away (if ever) from the brand new H2 infrastructure that will cost BILLIONS!
Reply
Phil L. 2:55PM (1/17/2007)
A more general view of the above:
Government is good at:
- Funding large efforts
- Setting long-term, generic objectives
Government is *NOT* good at:
- Choosing 'winners' - that is, specific solutions that should be decided based on demonstrable technical merit. Politics invariable skews the results (Example: See corn-based ethanol subsidies, which make little sense unless you're a senator in the midwest).
The current hype is hydrogen, but it'll be something else later on. Market realities and the ability of a technology to solve real-life problems must be the ultimate basis for such decisions. Government sponsored research needs to facilitate rational, defensible decisions - not merely the funding of a pre-ordained "solution".
Reply
OhmExcited 3:14PM (1/17/2007)
The DRIVE Act legislation is almost certain to become law later this year. It doesn't support hydrogen, but supports plug-in flex fuel hybrid vehicles. Basically exactly what the Chevy Volt is.
See this for more information: http://www.setamericafree.org/pc111605.htm
It's good news, because the tree huggers and neocons are coming to a consensus that proponents of electric vehicles can largely support.
Reply
Tim 3:35PM (1/17/2007)
OhmExcited- Thank you for the info!!
Reply
A5-14 3:39PM (1/17/2007)
It is stupid to use the Gasoline Tax to fund anything other than road construction and maintenance.
Metaldyne just wants a government handout.
Reply
OhmExcited 4:42PM (1/17/2007)
By the way, Tim. Here's a speech by former CIA director James Woolsey, who seems to be the brainchild behind setamaericafree.org and the legislation being Drive Act proposed and that Bush is expected to support. By the way, Plugin America (of Who Killed the Electric Car) is affiliated with setamericafree.org.
Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx7NBpTRsNo
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JuZr2FpyfKE
It seems more than a coincidence that the announcement of the GM Volt seemed to almost perfectly dovetail with what they and the legislation is proposing. I think they all talk. It's also interesting to note that Woolsey criticizes hydrogen as an experiment we don't have to time for. Solutions are needed NOW.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 8:37PM (1/17/2007)
a) Political Correctness makes bad law, bad public policy, bad economics, bad business and bad science.
b) Using hydrogen to power automobiles is insanely stupid.
c) If the Chevy Volt is any good, it won't need government subsidy to sell profitably. If it needs government subsidy, that is prima facie evidence that something is very much wrong with it.
Speaking of the Volt, in a prior autobloggreen entry, it was implied that the Volt may not be able to utilize the new nanosafe battery system if it isn't a "pure" EV. Which may be why GM is not using the term 'hybrid' for this car. Regardless, this sounds a lot like some goody-two-shoes in AltairNano trying to force his particular version of Political Correctness on the rest of us via licensing restrictions (and the severely broken patent system). See item 'a' above. Fortunately, there is at least one other competing technology for LiON batteries which might win out due to this particular exercise in stupidity.
Reply
Andy 8:23PM (1/17/2007)
Electric guys: get over it. The US cannot support fifty million EVs. The power grid cannot take that kind of demand. Hydrogen gives an incentive for energy producers like Shell and BP. Anyone can find presentation by skeptics saying this or that. Oh, wait--here's a promotion of hydrogen:
http://www.silverwoodenergy.com/hydrofaq.htm
Doesn't mean anything, guys. No one cares about pro-electric or anti-hydrogen presentations. One thing is certain: nothing can be achieved without effort. Hydrogen energy development has come a long way, and to just demand dropping it is silly.
As for government support, history has shown this to be bad gamble. Government research has done work in advancing scientific findings, the the bureaucracy will always hurt the effectiveness of this research. The United States government already spends billions of drollars on alternative fuel research with no noticeable results.
Reply
Hippie Hunter 11:29PM (1/17/2007)
HYDROGEN IS EVIL!!
DIRTY, EXPENSIVE DIESEL MUY BUENO!!
GIVE ME ELECTRIC CAR!!
Reply
George Krpan 12:46AM (1/18/2007)
Yes, tax the shit out of gasoline. Hasten it's demise. Use the money to fund ANYTHING that gets us off of our dependence on oil. Don't give hydrogen any preferential treatment, why?
If people were faced with paying double for gas that would get them out of their gas guzzlers in a hurry.
If they bought a car that gets 30mpg instead of 15mpg the price increase would have no effect on them.
Reply
CM 1:49AM (1/18/2007)
The problem with the Metaldyne argument is the blithe assumption that the answer must be Hydrogen, no other alternatives will even be considered. They won't be considered as hydrogen does badly in comparison with almost any alternative! Hydrogen is bulky, inefficient, and expensive.
from Post 10 "The US cannot support fifty million EVs."
So? The US cannot support 50 thousand hydrogen vehicles, supply and distribution is just not available yet. We are far closer to "supporting" 50 million EVs than 50 thousand hydrogen cars. The "EV support upgrade" costs and the EV costs are far less than the hydrogen alternatives.
Silverwood Energy can hardly be considered unbiased, they sell expensive fuel cells to complement their expensive solar cell panels (curiously, both are close to the same cost per watt!) and they don't want any alternatives that might cut into their business.
Reply
Nathan 3:53AM (1/18/2007)
Andy: just out of interest, how do you propose the hydrogen for 50 million fuel cell cars will be made?
Reply
Bill Maher is an Idiot 2:55PM (1/18/2007)
I thought hydrogen is the most abundant resource on Earth?
Whoops.
Someone forgot that.
Isn't it highly unstable, too? I know terrorists will love that.
If the Northeast has trouble with supplying power to homes in the winter, it'll do even better with a bunch of electric cars needing four hours to charge. Ugh. Not to mention they're ugly as hell.
Oh, wait. There's ethanol. Gas companies already make it and cars can run on them. Wow.
Reply
George Krpan 1:22PM (1/19/2007)
"The US cannot support fifty million EVs."
There will come a point where our ability to provide electricity will exceed our ability to provide fossil fuels.
Reply
Brendan Moore 5:59PM (2/25/2007)
Regarding the current utility grid and EVs, ,heres something interesting to think about: The U.S. Department of Energy did a study (DOE website) recently regarding the existing power grid’s ability to handle the demands of plug-in hybrid vehicles. And according to the DOE, the existing grid will handle 180 million plug-in vehicles.
There were some other thought-provoking assumptions in the report; for instance, the fact that if more electric power was being provided by utility companies as a result of electric vehicles being recharged, this additional power would be provided over existing infrastructure, resulting in a maximum realization of value for the utility vis-à-vis the fixed network, thereby driving down the overall cost of electricity nationwide. This effect, however, would be much more pronounced on the East Coast and the Midwest, which currently has idle capacity in current transmission infrastructure. The report also noted that carbon dioxide emissions in cities would go down by about 5%, but sulfur dioxide emissions (the cause of acid rain) would go up in rural areas as a result of more coal being burned in those areas to produce the extra electricity.
Just as an FYI, if you think environmentalists are fanatics about plug-in hybrids, you should spend some time with a utility company executive. To them, it’s all about a different kind of green power – a switch to hybrid electric vehicles by a substantial number of drivers would mean a tremendous increase in revenues and profits (green, indeed!) for utility companies nationwide. To say that their self-interests are at work in their support of plug-in vehicles is a considerable understatement of fact.
Second, regarding an increase in the gast tax, if you go to http://www.autosavant.net and click on "Archives", there is an article there concerning the same subject. You may find it interesting as it relates to this discussion.
Brendan Moore - Autosavant.net
Reply