Obama, DOE slash hydrogen fuel cell funding in new budget
by Sebastian Blanco on May 8th 2009 at 7:55AM 
Honda FCX Clarity - Click above for a gallery
The message has been hinted at before, but the federal government is now serious about shifting the focus away from hydrogen and onto plug-in vehicles. In an important statement yesterday, Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that hydrogen vehicles are still 10 to 20 years away from practicality and that millions in federal government funding for hydrogen programs will be cut from the 2010 federal budget. Chu said, "We asked ourselves, 'Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will covert to a hydrogen car economy?' The answer, we felt, was 'no'" (well, duh).
Did we mention this is a big reversal? Just a few weeks ago, Chu announced $41.9 million for hydrogen projects. A major switch, but not totally surprising. During the presidential campaign last fall, Obama did call for a million PHEVs by 2015.
The U.S. Fuel Cell Council the National Hydrogen Association quickly released a joint statement against the budget cuts. The statement reads, in part:
The cuts proposed in the DOE hydrogen and fuel cell program threaten to disrupt commercialization of a family of technologies that are showing exceptional promise and beginning to gain market traction. Fuel cell vehicles are not a science experiment. These are real vehicles with real marketability and real benefits. Hundreds of fuel cell vehicles have collectively logged millions of miles.
Read it in full after the jump. There will be much more to come on this, without a doubt. The fallout will take months (years?) to fully understand.
UPDATE: Greg Blencoe writes in to remind us of the 25 things he wishes Obama knew about hydrogen cars.
Gallery: AFVI Ride & Drive Hygroden 7
[Source: Green Car Advisor, U.S. Fuel Cell Council the National Hydrogen Association, NYTimes]
PRESS RELEASE:
Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Associations Criticize DOE Program Cuts
Official Joint Statement
Washington, DC
May 7, 2009-The National Hydrogen Association (NHA) and U.S. Fuel Cell Council (USFCC) issued the following joint statement regarding the Obama Administration's FY 2010 budget request for the U.S Department of Energy:"The cuts proposed in the DOE hydrogen and fuel cell program threaten to disrupt commercialization of a family of technologies that are showing exceptional promise and beginning to gain market traction.
"Fuel cell vehicles are not a science experiment. These are real vehicles with real marketability and real benefits. Hundreds of fuel cell vehicles have collectively logged millions of miles.
"Both the National Academy of Sciences and NHA's recent Energy Evolution report conclude that a portfolio of vehicle technologies is needed to achieve the nation's energy and environmental security goals and that hydrogen is essential to success. Hydrogen also advances the Obama Administration's goals of greener power generation and a smarter power grid.
Gallery: Kristen Davis with the Hydrogen 7
"The newest fuel cell vehicles get 72 miles per gallon equivalent with no compromise in creature comforts. Fuel cell buses operating in revenue service achieve twice the fuel economy of diesel buses. Hydrogen production costs are already competitive with gasoline. Projected vehicle costs have been reduced by 75%. These are accomplishments of the Department's own program in partnership with industry. It would truly be a government waste to squander them by walking away just as success is in sight.
"The National Academy recommended a portfolio approach and we are frankly puzzled at the Energy Department's decision to ignore that recommendation even as the Department uses other material from the same report to justify its proposed cut.
"We are also concerned that the Department appears to be walking away from its Market Transformation activities, which support fuel cell deployment in early commercial applications. This Congressionally-mandated program is demonstrating the ability of fuel cells to provide a competitive and green alternative to battery-based systems in vehicles and in power supply.
"Finally, we are concerned that the Department has proposed to cut funds for the Solid State Energy Conversion Alliance (SECA). SECA success could dramatically lower the cost of carbon sequestration, improve power plant efficiency, and enable a virtually pollution-free coal plant in the future. Additional funding will hasten SECA progress."
The NHA and USFCC collectively represent more than 200 companies and organizations.
# # #
About the U.S. Fuel Cell Council
The USFCC is an industry association dedicated to fostering the commercialization of fuel cells in the United States. Our members include the world's leading fuel cell developers, manufacturers, suppliers and customers. www.usfcc.com
About the National Hydrogen Association
The National Hydrogen Association (NHA) is the premier hydrogen trade organization led by over 100 companies dedicated to supporting the transition to hydrogen. Efforts are focused on education and outreach, policy, safety and codes and standards. Since 1989, the NHA has served as a catalyst for information exchange and cooperative projects and continues to provide the setting for mutual support among industry, research and government organizations. www.HydrogenAssociation.org
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Tohe 8:08AM (5/08/2009)
Thank God!!!!!!!!!!
Reply
Tohe 8:36AM (5/08/2009)
On a more serious note, with this announcement, the DOE and President Obama have demonstrated that they are serious about pursuing sustainable mobility and energy independence. Finally progress is gleaming on the horizon.
Mark 8:53AM (5/08/2009)
H2 is a waste! You need electric energy to convert the fuel into electrical energy which is inefficient. Plug-ins and moving to renewable energy is the best thing for America.
Reply
Jamie 8:56AM (5/15/2009)
Batteries only gice back 80% of the energy you put in and get worse over time. H2 is the way to go!
Chris M 8:29PM (5/15/2009)
Jaime, the combination of electrolysis and PEM fuel cells only give back 30% of the electricity put in. Subtract the energy needed to compress H2 for storage, and you've got around 23% efficiency.
Batteries are 3x more efficient than going the H2 route.
If you want higher efficiency, a "powered highway" to deliver power on the go can hit even higher efficiency than batteries.
Joe 9:41AM (5/08/2009)
Cue the gorr inanity....
Reply
jharlan 9:49AM (5/08/2009)
We need better elctrical storage technology now, more advanced ICE technology now, advanced nuclear technology now, a shift to energy sources we don't have to import now (like wind, water, and solar and nuclear). Those things are practical solutions to solving our trade problems, our transportation needs, making us more competitive in our global market, and incremental steps toward cleaning up our planet. Some predict impending doom if we don't go to hydrogen now, but hydrogen is a technology for the next century, and by them we may be using antigravity devices or something else we haven't even thought of yet. The emphasis on practical research and development is critical.
If we were to experience a disruption in our oil supply like might occur is Israel attacks Iran, the might of our government would have to come to bear on accelerating the development of all these things and in the end we would be stronger and better equipped to face our future.
Reply
Nicholas 10:36AM (5/08/2009)
Hey jharlan, did you smoke the same grass as Gorr?
harlanx6 10:49AM (5/08/2009)
Come on now, I can spell (with spell check)!
Snoopy 5:04PM (5/08/2009)
Hold on guys. jharlan's right!
Hydrogen is the fuel of the next century. The 22nd century. Who knows. By then, maybe we actually will have some realistic way of converting things to hydrogen and hydrogen to usable energy. And, what the heck, maybe we will have anti-grav technology.
In the meantime, has it occurred to anybody that jharlan might be gorr? Nothing really stopping people from having multiple usernames, right?
harlanx6 5:50PM (5/08/2009)
Pleeeease! that is a low blow! I don't advocate "fuel for free gazeous hydrogen".
Snoopy 1:04PM (5/10/2009)
harlanx6,
Unless I missed you mention that you are jharlan at some point, my comment wasn't related to you. Let me know if I'm not quite getting something.
harlanx6 9:45PM (5/10/2009)
jharlan and harlanx6 are the same guy, me. Sorry, I entered the wrong hndle there.
DaveD 10:18AM (5/08/2009)
I agree Tohe....Thank God!!!!!! The really good thing about this is that it sends a signal to all the little piglets trying to stick their nose in the "hydrogen trough" that it will soon dry up. That is where the real damage comes because it was encouraging lots of stupid work in that direction that was not practical.
Now those same people will start trying to find ways to build out the technology and infrastructure for more near term projects like recharging stations and algal biofuels, etc.
Reply
stas peterson 7:13PM (5/11/2009)
When yiou expect little out of the people appointed in this Admisnistration , it is still nice to see some positive things to praise. Aftrer a period of experimentation to see which technology would succeed, and "letting a thousand flowers bloom", it is apparent that Fuel Cells are a technology not yet ready for prime time. It is nice to see reassignment of resources, there. Well done Obamamites. Now the proof of ther pudding wil be to stomp on the Fuel Cell Absolutists at CARB, and do away with their insane Gold Points system that penalizes everything except for rewards for Fuel Cells.
Where or where is the funding for Fusion and ITER contributions? Where or where is the funding for basic research? I remember all those people who said the Obamamites would restore real Science. Yeah Right. It went in the dumpster by 32%.
There is already a but & however.
Cutting the budget of DOE by 32% is eating your seed corn. But it is typical of what to expect when Welfare statism starts. It is a grim foreboding of what will happen to medical research, when single payer arrives and costs far exceed revenues. Cut research funding, as has happened in every country with government welfare health.
Reply
Richard 11:34AM (5/08/2009)
As an electricity storage medium (effectively) hydrogen is still appealing, but the lack of a fueling grid makes it impractical for cars. For planes, however, and other vehicles there's no reason not to move forward. Of course, planes and trains have far different power storage needs than your average family sedan.
Reply
Greg Blencoe 1:03PM (5/08/2009)
Top 25 things I wish President Barack Obama knew about hydrogen fuel cell cars and plug-in battery cars
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/03/25/top-25-things-i-wish-president-barack-obama-knew-about-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-and-plug-in-battery-cars/
Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
"Hydrogen Car Revolution" blog
Reply
stevejust 2:36PM (5/08/2009)
Let me ask you this, from a purely laws of entropy/thermodynamics/physics perspective:
Mr. Blencoe, I'm assuming you're talking about hydrogen to make electricity in a fuel cell vehicle, rather than hydrogen to burn in a combustion engine, is that correct? I believe that assumption is correct.
Then let me ask you how it will ever be more efficient, practical and cost effective to use enegery (from whatever source) to create hydrogen in a useable form, to then somehow store that hydrogen in a car, to then use in the hydrogen in the car to recreate electricity to propel that car. How does that make any sense?
Do what now?
The electric car is Occam's Razor solution to that problem. Fix the batteries. Use the electricity with as little extra energy inputs as possible, and that will be the solution going forward. Plug-ins allow for the fact that our battery technology doesn't give us the range we need yet.
Fuel Cells are kinda... an interesting experiment in futility. And yes, every once in a while there's some murmur about new hydrogen storage break-throughs or hydrogen production or extraction breakthroughs, but let's get real. The science behind the fuel cell is more complicated than the science behind the battery, is it not?
Chris M 3:48AM (5/09/2009)
OK, lets look at Blencoes list.
1. Honda hasn't "completely rejected plug-in battery technology", they've recently announced plans to make electric motorcycles, and are already reconsidering plug-ins, with possible production by 2014. The biggest problem Honda has in making plug-in hybrids is that their "assist" design is not well suited for plug-in use, that's the reason for their lack of enthusiasm. However, nothing is stopping them from making a BEV, or a series hybrid plug-in.
2. Toyota has been doing some H2 research, but haven't made any production plans and have only produced a handful of prototype test mules. On the other hand, Toyota is much closer to marketing a plug-in hybrid and a BEV, with production prototypes being tested, with production scheduled to start in 2010.
3, 4. Daimler "series production" means they plan to make a few, one at a time, if they can find buyers willing to pay full price, or a government willing to subsidize the half-million dollar cost. Or if several miraculous breakthroughs occur real soon to bring the cost down to about 1% of current costs.
5, 6. Toyota hopes to begin production sometime around 2015 - assuming, again, those miraculous breakthroughs bringing the cost down to 1% of current cost. Meanwhile, production and sale of both plug-in hybrids and EVs are scheduled to begin 4 years earlier.
7. That "Toyota FCHV" was already "introduced", it is just a prototype mule to test a new fuel cell and storage tank. There is no plan to produce this vehicle.
8. Notice that even the "still very bullish on the promise of Fuel Cells" executive admits that there are "cost problems", and "Energy storage is still an issue".
9. An outdated news article, GM no longer plans to have H2FC vehicles in showrooms by 2012. Even if that 1% cost breakthroughs were to occur now, it would take longer than that come to market...
10. Thats why GM has pushed back the date to 2015. And no doubt GM will push the date back even further, later on.
11. Honda is researching LiIon batteries for use in their hybrids. And slashing battery costs to "2.5% of current cost" is less of a challenge than cutting the cost of both fuel cells and H2 storage to 1% of current cost.
12. Forming H2 fueling co-operatives requires not only selling thousands of people a far more expensive vehicle, but to pony up an additional $2k just to refuel it with more expensive fuel. Sorry, but most people would rather pay less for a plug-in, pay about 1/5 the cost for electric "fuel" they can get at home, and not have to invest anything into a potentially money loosing co-operative. Besides, those "H2 co-ops" will be competing against oil companies that have a cheaper source of H2.
13. That speech is aimed at maintaining the hydrogen hype, and was basically "preaching to the choir".
14. The dirty secret of the "hydrogen road tour" is those H2FC vehicles were all transported from town to town on diesel trucks, because a) there were no H2 refueling facilities along the way, and b) it was cheaper than hauling along several tankers of H2 fuel. Of course, it was just a propaganda effort, and didn't really prove anything, except that the H2 hiway still isn't ready.
15. Even assuming that number of H2 stations was sufficient and the cost estimates are realistic (a big assumption) the 24 billion cost is still staggering. We could install a lot more "1 hour park and charge" outlets for a lot less money.
16. That engineer thinks that H2FC vehicles will be practical someday, but right now he's working on a plug-in that is practical now, and will render H2FC vehicles obsolete before they arrive.
17, 18. Toyota's 2nd EV effort may be small and sold in limited numbers, but it will be on sale years before any H2 vehicles are sold, and at a lower cost. Also, Toyota is planning other plug-ins, some will be quite a bit bigger and more versatile - and remember they once sold the RAV4-EV, which have no trouble with that "trip to Wal-Mart with the Wife and Kids". Most RAV4-EVs are still on the road a decade later.
19. The "10 mile EV range" of the planned Toyota plug-in Prius is due to the small size of the LiIon battery they plan to use, not to any inherent limitation in the battery itself. But it will be for sale years before any H2FC cars, and the cost is a fraction of any H2FC cars. Toyota could increase the battery size 10 times and still have a lower price than any H2FC car.
20. Mr. Champions opinion is not based on any testing, CU hasn't yet tested the Volt to know how it would behave at "70 mph". It's his personal guess, not a verified fact.
21. Yes, the Roadster battery replacement cost is $30K, that includes parts and labor and profit margin for Tesla. But replacement isn't needed for 5 to 7 years, and the fact that Tesla is offering a $12K prepaid replacment indicates that Tesla is expecting the batteries to be reliable, and that costs will come down.
22. 11 months later, and Honda considers batteries suitable for motorbikes, and now is even considering making plug-in cars. Also, someone who actually drove a FCX Clarity found it took closer to 15 minutes to refill, not "1 minute". Hmm, turns out that some LiIon batteries can be recharged in less time than it takes to refill that H2 tank!
23. It's ironic to crow about the cost of the Volt battery, considering that the H2 storage tank alone cost more than that battery - high pressure carbon fiber tanks don't come cheap, and other methods of H2 storage cost even more. Of course there is the half-million dollar cost of the fuel cell itself, with $300,000 worth of platinum inside. Oh, and don't forget that the H2FC cars all have LiIon battery packs, too.
24. The "disappointing results" came about because city employees rarely bothered to take a few seconds to plug in the plug-in, a type of carelessness common to government employees. Results were much better when it was plugged in every night.
25. Article entitled "Fallacy of energy efficiency argument against hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by plug-in battery advocates" - except it isn't a fallacy, batteries really are 3x more efficient at storing energy. So, instead, Blencoe argues that it doesn't really matter, that there will be plenty of renewable energy - ignoring the additional cost of 3x more solar cells and wind farms. H2 advocates routinely ignore the extravagant costs of H2 storage and H2 fuel cells, so it's not suprising they ignore the cost of providing renewable energy. Blencoe goes on to argue that there are other considerations besides efficiency, and he's right, there are. Unfortunately, BEvs match or exceed H2FCVs in almost every category, and BEVs win by a large margin in both cost and efficiency. So why bother with the more expensive less efficient H2 option?
Lad 1:06PM (5/08/2009)
Isn't it great to have a group of politicians that listen to their scientists and at least try to follow their advice to set policy!
We all know by now that the promises of Hydrogen were the result of political interference by auto and oil lobbyists driven by their goal of continuing control of the automobile energy business. H2 has proven time and again it is still a laboratory exercise and is not practical for the street yet. There are many problems to be solved for H2 before it will work for the masses. Perhaps the oil companies should fund the projects directly and not be aided by federal funding until H2 is ready for the road!
Reply