European Commission calls for 470 million euro investment into hydrogen cars
The allure of hydrogen cars is in their lack of emissions, and this was enough to cause the European Union's executive arm to recently suggest a 470 million euro (665 million dollars) investment into the technology.
EU Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen said, "I'm absolutely not sure that the hydrogen powered car is the car of the future. It is a technology that is really promising and it is important that we give that technology the possibility to be developed."
Although manufacturers such as BMW, General Motors, Honda and Mazda all have hydrogen vehicles that are already on the roads, Verheugen recognizes that the cars are not likely to make a large dent in the overall emissions from cars anytime soon. He said, "Whether it will work I do not know. But what I know is that in the next 10 years we will not have hydrogen powered cars on our streets -- not in a quantity that will count in any way for (bringing down) the emissions."
In addition to the hefty sum allotted for research, the EU would also like to set up standard rules for the manufacturers so that it was easier for them to bring hydrogen vehicles to market. Some day, maybe.
[Source: Physorg]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
A.Brien 12:40PM (10/11/2007)
It's not in cars that goverment should invest, they
are already fine and working good . They should invest in re-fueling station technology. It's the reason car manufacturers don't sell hydrogen cars.
And on top of that cars can be powered by on-board water electrolysers that produce hydrogen on-demand. It's time someone break the silence and told the truth abouth it. Stan mayer told that in the eighties and in 1968 one guy build the first water powered car in the phillipine.
Reply
Kardax 12:53PM (10/11/2007)
Stan Meyer = con artist. One of the best, actually: he's still doing it even after his death.
Reply
Mik_Cal 1:40PM (10/11/2007)
What a waste!
Spend the money on electric buses and battery research!
Reply
Nicholas 11:15AM (10/12/2007)
Why the fuck are they investing in hydrogen? It´s like 20 years off and batterytechnology is here, TODAY.
Reply
pkuhl 2:51PM (10/11/2007)
This European fuel cell scientist will happily tell you that H2 fuel cells will never beat out electric cars. Ergo, this is a giant step in the wrong direction. Thermodynamics says you can't do H2 efficiently.
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
Reply
rgseidl 3:06PM (10/11/2007)
Note that Verheugen said that hydrogen isn't going to make much of a difference any time soon - if ever. That's as close as someone in his position can come to saying the whole thing is pure corporate welfare, a pointless white elephant. Presumably, lobbyists for the nuclear and natural gas industries - who stand to gain most from FCVs - managed to persuade enough of his colleagues in the Commission to overrule him.
Another possibility: this would be a consolation prize for French and Italian automakers who wanted the upcoming CO2 fleet average emissions computed on a per-company basis. That would hurt their German and Swedish competitors a lot more than it would hurt them. The German industry association VDA is advocating weight bins, with separate emissions targets for each. Current ACEA chief Marchionne (CEO of Fiat S.p.A) has suggested a compromise based on the area of the normal projection of the vehicle's shape onto the road. Negotiations are going on behind closed doors, so it's hard for outsiders to know their current status.
Reply
Ron Fischer 4:40PM (10/11/2007)
To put a fine point on rgseidl's comment: fuel cell auto research is a scientific, political and economic distraction. By committing money to this work (and giving automakers various types of "credit" for doing so) it eliminates research time, funding and political willpower from all other, near term investment possibilities. Things eliminated include investment in better battery technology, mass production of lighter body materials, regulation of pollution "externalities", etc. IMHO this is less of a corporate welfare scheme than it is a multifaceted delaying tactic. Tell automakers they will only get credit (in terms of California ZEV, regulation delays, etc.) based on number of fuel cell vehicles actually sold to the public. Watch how quickly it all disappears.
Reply
mike 5:01PM (10/11/2007)
So the political process is almost as corrupt in the EU as in the US.
Reply
philmcneal 5:51PM (10/11/2007)
what in the fuck lord's?
like seriously the US just funded 40 million for battery reasearch, and FUEL CELL TECHNOLOGY GETS 10 times that amount?
Open your fucking eyes and see the truth people, its all a scam in the end.
Batteries barely got any funding and the technology is WOWING us, heck even some are driving certain prototypes or homebrew EV's
FUEL CELLS GOT ALL THE FUNDING THEY CAN GET AND NO ONE UP TO THIS DAY CAN SAY
"Hey i own that fuel cell Car"
Fucking pathetic, if battery had the same fighting chance as fuel cells we wouldn't even give a rat's ass about the hydrogen highway.
Reply
GoodCheer 6:47PM (10/11/2007)
I doubt A.Brien will be back at this site, I think I've read him(her?) post that comment before.
A. Brien... what do you propose to use to power the electrolysers? Electrolysis requires electricity. So we'll put in a battery to extract hydrogen from the water, then run that through a fuel cell to produce electricity... Please tell me you see the problem with this.
Reply
tim 11:41AM (10/12/2007)
Ah, governments invest in yet ANOTHER looser. Why should they care, it's not THEIR money and much of it will come back them as campaign contributions.
I know there are those who believe in limited free market, but this is what happens when politicians play scientists and choose technologies with tax dollars. To politicians the word “investment” really means “tax & spend” and “pandering”.
Reply
Chris M 10:22PM (10/13/2007)
What a bizzare bit of logic: It isn't going to work, there won't be enough of them to make any difference, so lets squander millions on it!
"A.brien" is clueless, and really believes that we can electrolyze enough water to run an internal combustion car engine using less electric power than a standard auto alternator produces. Efforts to educate him on the reality of physics are wasted, A.brien would rather believe a slick talking scammer than real science.
Reply
Steve Riggs 8:52AM (10/14/2007)
I presently have an on demand hydrogen unit that is delivering over twice the gas milage. Email me if interested at sriggs@hydrorunner.com
Reply
A.Brien 8:06PM (10/16/2007)
Somebody send me that. It's a water powered cellphone.
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200710/200710120006.html
Reply
Chris M 12:23AM (10/17/2007)
A.Brien, I checked out the link you provided, and that power source for the cell phone reacts a metal with water to produce H2 and a metal oxide. The metal gets used up and must be replaced, in this case every 5 days - a bit pricy and impractical. Rechargable batteries are much cheaper.
Unfortunately, the reporter got confused, didn't realize that the metal got used up, and actually thought a future version could be "fueled" with water only.
Sorry, but water, by itself, is not a fuel. You can apply electrical energy or chemical energy to split the H2 from the O, but it always takes more energy than the H2 can produce.
Reply