Not over yet: Senate subcommittee restores DOE's hydrogen funding cut
by Sebastian Blanco on Jul 8th 2009 at 7:44PM 
Hydrogen cars in Vancouver - click above for high-res image gallery
It was huge news back in May when President Obama and the DOE slashed hydrogen vehicle funding from the FY 2010 DOE budget. Since then, hydrogen advocates like CARB have put on the best possible face and asked the DOE to restore the funds. The first steps towards officially putting H2 back into the federal money stream has now been made in Washington, D.C.
The change comes from the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, run by U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) The subcommittee has finished marking up the DOE's FY 2010 budget and it now includes $190 million for continuation of the terminated hydrogen research and development program. Dorgan said in a release that "because ongoing research and development is necessary to develop game-changing technologies, this bill also restores funding for Hydrogen energy research." Hydrogen advocate Greg Blencoe notes that the House's version of hydrogen funding includes $108 million, including $40 million for hydrogen vehicles. The two chambers will reconcile their differences soon, probably within the next two weeks.
There's a copy of the National Hydrogen Association's most recent Policy Update after the jump and you can find the subcommittee's press release on this page (scroll to the middle and click on "Summary of FY 2010 Energy and Water Appropriations"). DOE head Stephen Chu has made strong comments in favor of the cut. Is a hydrogen political fight brewing in D.C.?
[Source: Hydrogen Car Revolution]
From the National Hydrogen Association:
Policy Update ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Greetings NHA Members and Friends,
The Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee (Senator Dorgan's Subcommittee) just finished marking up DOE's FY10 budget. The Chairman's mark that emerged from the Subcommittee provides a total of $190 million for hydrogen and fuel cells at DOE, largely restoring funding to FY2009 levels [the $68M that was in DOE's FY10 request for fuel cells would be included in that $190M]. We do not yet have further details on how the Senate Subcommittee would allocate this funding between sub-programs, etc., but we will continue to provide updates as soon as developments occur.
According to Chairman Dorgan: "The Energy and Water Appropriations bill makes investments in our nation's efforts to develop safe, homegrown energy sources that will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. To enhance our nation's energy security, we've made short-term, mid-range, and long-term investments in building efficiency, vehicle technologies, wind, and solar energy programs. And, because ongoing research and development is necessary to develop game-changing technologies, this bill also restores funding for Hydrogen energy research."
A link to a summary of the Senate E&W Subcommittee's bill is available in the middle of this webpage: http://appropriations.senate.gov/energy.cfm
For a comparison, the Senate Subcommittee's $190 million compares to the current House total of $108 million for hydrogen and fuel cells (the $40M for 'hydrogen vehicle systems' in addition to the $68M that was in the DOE FY10 request for fuel cells).
The full House Appropriations Committee also met last night to review the proposed FY10 budget that was passed by their Energy and Water Development Subcommittee on June 25th. The budget the full committee agreed to contained the same $40 million increase for hydrogen transportation systems that the House E&W Subcommittee had added to the DOE FY10 proposed budget. The House budget will now proceed to the House floor, currently rumored to be expected sometime in mid-July. Once completed in both the House and Senate, any differences between the House and Senate budgets would need to be negotiated in a conference committee. We will continue to support FY09 budget funding levels, now encouraging support for the Senate E&W Subcommittee's version through Congress.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 7)
Tohe 7:57PM (7/08/2009)
I'm pissed off.
Reply
Tohe 8:01PM (7/08/2009)
When is Byron Dorgan up for reelection? I will donate all I can to whoever is up against him, republican or democrat, I don't care.
Tohe 2:09AM (7/09/2009)
After studying the Senator, I realize that his interest in sponsoring hydrogen maybe other than political, he is up for reelection in 2010, but he enjoys a comfortable approval rating. Sen. Dorgan have faced controversy in the past due to contributions to his campaign from a lobbying group, he returned the funds to avoid the accusations. The Senator has also written about Electric Infrastructure, therefore he should understand the impact and increased cost of a hydrogen economy. His sudden support for Hydrogen remains a mystery worth exploring.
From Fivethertyeight..com:
---------------------------------------------
26. North Dakota (D-Dorgan)
Approval/Favorability Ratings: Byron Dorgan (D)
Poll Date Approve Disapprove Net
SurveyUSA 11/2006 75 21 +54
Theoretically, a red-state seat like this is always vulnerable given the right Republican challenger, but Dorgan is very popular and is the sort of incumbent who President Obama will be trying to make look good. Governor John Hoeven may eventually be a problem for Democrats once he picks his year to run for the Senate, but he resisted such overtures in 2006 and may wait until the Republican brand is in better shape.
--------------------------------------------
Tohe 2:34AM (7/09/2009)
How could I not have seen it before! The missing link is T. Boone Pickens. In 2001 for the Electric Transmission Infrastructure and Investment Needs hearing on the Senate's floor, one of the lobbying groups was the American Wind Energy Association. Mr. Pickens has close tides with this group as they have serve as a lobbying tool for his plans of a "huge wind farm" as part of his energy plan. Like I mentioned before Sen Dorgan was involved in this hearing and wrote extensively about it. Obviously Mr. Pickens and Sen. Dorgan go back a long way. Today Mr. Pickens has shifted his focus from Gas, Wind to Hydrogen, now it is up to you to draw your own conclusions.
Patrick 11:04AM (7/09/2009)
Thank goodness Congress is enlightened about hydrogen technology. And thank goodness it's not a new thing for them. Hydrogen technologies have received bi-partisan support for years because of the solid science behind it.
Many of the Members of Congress understand how much hydrogen vehicles can do today and how effective the R&D over the last several years has been. It's too bad other posters in this comment field don't understand these technologies as well. The unsubstantiated bias is clear.
We need a portfolio of clean vehicle technologies to meet the challenges we face and that portfolio must include hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles.
Grant 11:25AM (7/09/2009)
Addressing the Fuel Cell Naysayers
The recent news from California Fuel Cell Partnership of their plan to deploy hydrogen refueling stations received many of the typical negative comments to the promise of fuel cells and the hydrogen medium. The standard fuel cell and hydrogen criticisms are easily refuted. Technology commercialization curves have upfront higher costs, and then, as with IT, the efficiency of the given technology increases and costs drop, or at least remaining relatively constant as the product efficiency still rises.
The questions of why fuel cells work; and how the feedstock systems for a fuel cell car, truck, bus or light rail train work; and what the point of it all is, needs to be addressed before lay persons make sure they have killed off this climate change technology solution. Climate change technology solutions are often premium environmentally preferred solutions. Yes, the cost of solar coming more into line with coal on a per kilowatt basis is great; but a viable solar car is unlikely. A world of battery plug-in hybrid vehicles does not cut GHG emissions enough, nor does a world of PHEVs + biofuel cars alone. And certainly replacing the global demand of all our currently estimated as well as near future personal vehicle needs with PHEVs, biofuel and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCV) means a lot of natural resources going into transportation systems that facilitate a way of thinking we can't really cope with any longer. Mass transit in additional to fundamental urban and rural system redesign is needed as well.
The next thing to realize about HFCVs is that the refueling stations get the hydrogen from our existing natural gas infrastructure and water (H20 when necessary and prudent). US natural gas infrastructure exists mostly in urban and semi-urban regions, so some use of water electrolysis and waste-to-energy H2 production is needed. Some h2 refueling stations use both NG and water as feedstock, as H2 is a byproduct of many materials and fuels already existing in modern civilization. How to power these H2 refueling units (H2RU)? Solar and wind can supplement H2RU energy for H2 production as well, but H2RUs are going up alongside sewage treatment plants that are extracting methane (the basic element in natural gas and a byproduct of much of our waste) using Smart Grid fuel cells.
The range, versatility and tighter fueling process loop make fuel cell vehicles competitive to battery-only, hybrid and biofuel transportation solutions. Fuel cell vehicles use batteries, however these are the only vehicles that can also obtain their energy source from a wide range of feedstocks. HFCVs can 'plug in' for Smart Grid (vehicle-to-grid) applications the same way as PHEVs.
HFCV deployment only requires a few additional technology commercialization steps to become a normal part of modern civilization. If naysayers can prove why stationary fuel cells are not providing Smart Grid environmentally preferred power now; and why HFCV deployment isn't ready to go, then prove it. Thousands of scientists, engineers, vehicle and power systems CEOs can be brought together to tell the true story of fuel cells and their fueling technologies.
brose 11:32AM (7/09/2009)
I don't get the rage, honestly I don't. Can't we all agree that oil is the villain, and the CO2 from burning oil and other fossil fuels is probably destabilizing the planet. With a challenge so daunting, how can you have such certainty that one pathway or another is the choice at this moment? All of them are untried, none of them is commercial, all of them will require the deep pockets of government (and some breakthroughs) to get a fair shot at marketplace success. If you only choose one at this stage, what if it doesn't pan out?
The only certain way to energy independence and climate stability is through the kind of aggressive and draconian taxes and regulations that most Americans do not support. It may come to that, but most people prefer to see what American ingenuity can come up with in the way of advanced technologies. There is no certain technology pathway at the moment. All have promise. Keeping an open mind is the ONLY rational option.
So spare me the witch hunting. Hydrogen advocates are neither commie dupes (nor oil industry dupes, for that matter -- big oil supports biofuels, not hydrogen) nor are they the devil's disciples. How about focuing together on the main goal - freeing us all from the scourge of fossil fuel combustion?
Tohe 11:54AM (7/09/2009)
Because a hydrogen economy is neither feasible nor sustainable. Do your research and you will soon realize that pursuing hydrogen is far more costly than its battery based counterpart, there are more steps involved in the production of hydrogen, more energy wasted and the cheapest way to produce hydrogen is from carbons which simply displaces CO2 emissions from the vehicle to the production of the fuel. All of this without mentioning the cost of a hydrogen infrastructure and the forces that are pushing for this nonsense. Like Secretary Chu have stated, there are miracles that have to happen for a hydrogen economy to happen, so if you believe in Miracles good for you, I'm more realistic and over all want my Country to succeed, not the Lobbyist you know the like of Greg Blencoe and company who are likely to be posting on here on disguise just to spin public opinion to their side.
Note to Autoblog Green: I wish you guys would check your ip address log / user agents and get rid of these fakes.
jen 12:06PM (7/09/2009)
Why are you pissed off? This is great news and really not going far enough. A Chinese company just offered to buy GM's Opel ONLY if GM throws in its fuel cell technology. We need fuel cells to be part of our energy portfolio because if we don't, the US is going to be buying it back from China and Japan just like we are now with hybrids.
Fuel cells are key and I am glad Congress realized it. All the automakers, countries like Germany, Japan and China, and the National Academy of Science say fuel cells are a key component, so why are you so against them?
Tohe 12:16PM (7/09/2009)
@jen
I have written my reasons above, I wish you would read before you post. All those countries that you mentioned are far easier to lobby than the United State. Speculating that we will have to buy hydrogen technology from the Japanese is nothing more than fear mongering and that says a lot about the hydrogen crowd. We don't need hydrogen, it is a waste of our resources. The world is facing great challenges and unfortunately we do not count with the resources to feed the hydrogen / big oil elite and their nonsense.
Elizabeth 12:54PM (7/09/2009)
As someone who has just recently started studying fuel cells, I am glad that Congress restored funding. Fuel cells are being used everyday in America to provide clean, reliable power for telecom stations, forklift operators, hotels and grocery stores; just to name a few. It seems to me that the potential market is huge. I dont see the point in being so upset over investing in a proven technology, especially since the amount requested by Congress is so small in comparison to the billions being invested in other technologies.
Nozferat 1:29PM (7/09/2009)
Tohe
You are one closed-minded idiot.
Why don't you go back to the stone age and not use any of the technologies that your silly smug-self is enjoying today. All those technologies that were extremely expensive and surely people like you back then were driveling the same nonsense you are driveling now.
Tohe 1:55PM (7/09/2009)
Again you are a bunch of phonies who sign up just to reply to this threat and promote your biased opinion! Stop man we know who you are and what you do, do you have any self respect? or is it the money worth your integrity?
Nozferat 2:16PM (7/09/2009)
Tohe...
Seriously stop...you sound like a complete douche.
Needless to say, like I said, go back to the stone age if you don't like progress.
As if battery and EV industry people aren't in it for the profit and power....get a life.
Nicholas 2:31PM (7/09/2009)
My best friend died in Poland as the result of driving a hydrogen car, the tank exploded and it became a ball of fire rolling down the highway. Hydrogen is not safe for our roads and our neighborhoods.
Tohe 2:53PM (7/09/2009)
Believe it or not some people seek more out of life than a dollar amount Craig, some of us want to leave behind a better world than how we found it, even for your kids, if you have them or decide to some day.
Rolf 6:59PM (7/09/2009)
I know people feel strongly about these issues, but I think Congress has done the right thing here. We shouldn't be picking technology winners and losers at this stage, especially since each of the main options face serious challenges.
From a public policy standpoint, we need our federal government to aggressively support each of the most promising low-carbon options ─ batteries, biofuels, fuel cells and hydrogen ─ and then after even-handed public policy treatment has given these options an equal chance to commercialize, let the market sort out the winning suite of vehicles and fuels.
Greg Blencoe 8:29PM (7/09/2009)
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are the only technology that can be scaled up globally and meet customer needs for driving range, fueling time, cost when mass produced, extreme weather performance, and trunk/passenger space.
Here is the plan to launch the Hydrogen Car Revolution which includes tax incentives to build the first 12,000 hydrogen fueling stations and help get the first 12 million hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road.
With peak oil looming, this is much less expensive than maintaining the status quo.
http://hydrogendiscoveries.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/plan-for-u-s-congress-to-launch-hydrogen-car-revolution-proposed-tax-incentives-for-hydrogen-fuel-cell-vehicles-and-hydrogen-fueling-stations/
Greg Blencoe
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrogen Discoveries, Inc.
"Hydrogen Car Revolution"
xyz 3:17AM (7/13/2009)
Blancoo - You are an idiot and a spammer. Do you homework first and then open your mouth. Many have asked questions and haven't received answers - just propaganda from you. And I address this also to the other hydrogen fool cell proponents: Serious answers first - until then y'all STFU!
Chris M 10:32PM (7/09/2009)
Patrick, please explain why we "need H2FC vehicles" that cost several times more than plug-ins, and use more natural gas or 3x more of our limited supply of renewable energy? Is there some obscure advantage of the more expensive less efficient H2 option that hasn't been revealed?
Grant, your "refuting" doesn't really hold up. It is improvements in production methods that have driven down prices in high tech, the material costs are a small fraction of the cost of electronics. But other items, like clothing and cars, haven't dropped in price at all, most of the production cost is in materials and there is little opportunity to reduce manufacturing costs. Most of the cost of H2 fuel cells and H2 storage is in the material costs, "mass production" simply can't lower prices below the material costs. So, unless there are several totally unexpected breakthrougs in materials, H2FC vehicles will remain too expensive to be economically competitive.
EVs and PHEVs can do even better than H2FCVs at reducing GHG emissions, considering that:
1. Most H2 fuels will be produced by steam reforming of fossil fuels, and
2. EVs and PHEVs are 3x more efficient than H2FC vehicles fueled by electrolysis. If you propose making H2 fuel from renewables via electrolysis, I could just as easily propose fueling EVs and PHEVs from the same renewable sources - with 2/3 of that electricity left over, available to displace fossil fuel usage elsewhere. Yes, efficiency really does matter when it comes to our limited supply of renewable electricity.
The notion of powering "light rail" by H2 fuel cells is rediculous. Not only is it several times more expensive to install and maintain than providing power via overhead wires or 3rd rail, it is also much less efficient, raising operating costs to unsustainable levels.
Both H2 and electricity come from the same sources, including fossil fuels and renewables, but going the battery electric route can be more efficient, and is always more efficient when it comes to renewable energy sources.
H2FC vehicles may be competitive to EVs in terms of range and versatility (what the heck is "tighter fueling process loop"?) but H2FCVs are not competitive in terms of cost and efficiency and performance. Cost is the main reason why H2FCV deployment isn't ready, even the proponents think it will take at least 6 more years of development. It would require several breakthroughs in fuel cell materials and H2 storage before production can even be considered. On the other hand, EVs are already affordable, already in production, and several breakthroughs to increase battery capacity and reduce costs have already been demonstrated.
Speaking of "Smart Grid", it was developed by AC Propulsion for use on EVs, and does not require fuel cells at all. Stationary fuel cells are mostly solid oxide cells running directly on natural gas, no hydrogen needed, and are used where the need for quiet operation and small size outweighs the higher price.
Brose: Cost and efficiency and the physical nature of H2 gas are the reasons why I can be certain the H2 vehicle paths are not the right choice. Both plug-ins and H2FCVs have been tried, but while H2FC has been stuck in expensive prototype mode for 40 years and counting, EVs are actually affordable now and are already in commercial production.