DOE invests $300 million in clean fuels, including one lonely hydrogen station
What does it cost to displace 38 million gallons of petroleum per year? According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), almost $300 million. That's the amount that DOE head Steven Chu announced last week would go from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into buying about 9,000 "alternative fuel and energy efficient" vehicles and 542 new refueling locations. The gasoline alternatives being funded by the money include the whole swath of options: including "natural and renewable gas, propane, ethanol, biodiesel, electricity, and hybrid technologies." While not prominently mentioned in the press release, a single hydrogen refueling station in New Haven, Connecticut, in fact, part of the funding (not a surprise). The money is being given out as part of the Clean Cities initiative, a partnership between the government and industry groups with the goal of reducing petroleum use in the transportation sector. See a complete list of grant winners here.
[Source: DOE]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ray 1:11PM (8/30/2009)
Looks like Chu completely dropped the ball at a chance to progress EV charging stations and EVs in general. Just more of the same. They talk a good talk, Obama and Chu but in the end it is just the same old thing. The economy is bad so we must keep those ICE being manufactured as this will help our economy. Looks like Toyota will get a boost from these grants as well as ethanol and LNG. Very disappointing.
Reply
jake 2:06PM (8/30/2009)
I counted roughly 200 charging stations and almost 100 EVs. Not the best, but a decent amount. While I'm also a big supporter of EVs, I realize the ICE will be staying for a while, which means if we want efficiency and lower emissions in the near term, we can't ignore improvements to the ICE. I think Obama and Chu has already done a lot for plug-ins in terms of grants and loans to makers of batteries and electric vehicles. It's pretty much unprecedented the amount of money they have spent on batteries and EVs.
And about the economy: adopting any alternative fuel will take a lot of money, both from the consumer and the government. If the economy stays like it is right now, there is little hope we can make much progress in alternative fuels.
PopSmith 1:57PM (8/30/2009)
While it would have been nice to see more electrical charging stations built, the truth of the matter is that EVs currently (no pun intended) represent an extremely small portion of vehicles compared to their dinosaur-powered counterparts.
As more and more automakers start creating EVs the demand for charging stations will increase and you'll see them spring up. It will be slow due to the sheer amount of gas powered cars but it will happen.
Reply
Mark Kiernan 2:10PM (8/30/2009)
I think Mitsubishi and Nissan will push local communities to supply EV points.
Reply
healthy skeptic 3:31PM (8/30/2009)
I still think the whole worry about charging stations for EVs is overblown, mainly because we're so psychologically conditioned to gas stations. And that includes most EV supporters.
The nice thing about EVs is that they don't have to rule every niche of the automotive universe in order to establish a strong foothold in the marketplace. Public charging stations simply aren't needed for this.
Let's say that within 3-5 years, most full-on highway-capable EVs (not glorified golf carts) can get at least 150 miles of range. Obviously it's useless for a cross-country trip, but more than adequate for commutes, errands and cross-town trips. Most home-owning American households have at least two cars. Therefore such EVs would be perfect as a second or third car, and they don't need charging stations since they can be charged perfectly well in a garage. How many American cars already fall under this niche? I don't know...a hundred million maybe?
Eventually, as EVs spread out to occupy other niches, yes, public charging stations will be needed. Chargers will also have to be installed in apartment complexes and rental properties (which I think is a better place to focus resources and legislation to promote chargers). But it doesn't have to happen for several years, and it's not standing in the way.
Reply
solar_h2_man 3:31PM (8/30/2009)
Dr. Chu is in over his head. Just read his Wikipedia summary and you'll see that he is not a renewable power scientist AT ALL:
As a scientist, Chu is known for his research in cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light, which won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997.[3] At the time of his appointment as Energy Secretary, he was a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley and the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where his research was concerned primarily with the study of biological systems at the single molecule level.[1] He is a vocal advocate for more research into alternative energy and nuclear power, arguing that a shift away from fossil fuels is essential to combat global warming
---------------
I think it is safe to say that he'll likely be replaced after serving just one term as DOE's Secretary.
Reply
Posterboy 12:17AM (8/31/2009)
@solar_h2_man: I love posts like yours which present the opportunity to turn nonsense into a learning opportunity for myself. Of course, then I can't help but share, but thats my own character flaw...
FIrst off, by "renewable power scientist", I assume you are actually referring to an engineer of some sort, but are you talking Electrical, Mechanical or Chemical? Either way, its good to know that the Physics and specifically "research in cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light", doesn't have anything to do with energy. Anyhoo, your post practically begged me to head over to wikipedia to check out what degrees the previous heads of the DOE obtained. In order from the founding of the DOE in 1977, we have:
Economics
Chemical Engineer
Oral Surgeon (DMD)
Law
Law
Mechanical Engineer
Law
(Another)Law
French/Political Science + Masters in International Affairs
Law (again)
Chemical Engineer
Physics
So... I'd have to say that if a guy with a dual degree in Politcal Science/French! and a Masters in International Affairs can run the DOE (Sorry Bill Richardson), then I think a Nobel Prize winning Physicist is hardly "in over his head" at the DOE. As far as "being replaced after one term", the longest serving Secretary of the DOE lasted just under 4 years, so no one has lasted more than 4 years in this position as of yet.
As for the most surprising factoid... GW Bush actually appointed one of the most qualified DOE heads, (Samuel Bodman) who earned Doctor of Science in Chemical Engineering (from MIT no less), worked as an associate professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT, and was recently replaced by Dr. Chu. (Bet you wouldn't have guessed that)
Todays useless information brought to you by Posterboy!
Carney 11:47AM (9/16/2009)
Unfortunately, posterboy, Bush also appointed, for the first term, Spencer Abraham as Energy Secretary, and Abraham wasted that whole term diverting the immense post-9/11 political momentum to get off oil into the Hydrogen Hoax.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
Abraham is now a registered paid agent of the Saudi government; would they have set him up with a six-figure sinecure if he had not been extremely useful? As longtime Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince Bandar, boasted to the Washington Post, as word gets around about how well the Saudis treat their friends once out of office, the Saudis get a lot more friends who are still in office.
Carney 10:04AM (8/31/2009)
A shame to see more money still being thrown at the Hydrogen Hoax.
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
Reply
LizR 11:32AM (8/31/2009)
The Clean Cities people sure love heavy-duty vehicles and natural gas. It's a shame that more of these projects are not directed toward building *public* stations and chargers. Nearly all of the awards are for fleet vehicles, fleet stations and proven technology. I can't believe that DOE awarded anyone for a public CNG or LNG station.
Goes to show how hard change will be. Clean Cities didn't take the opportunity to fund any novel projects and just a handful of projects that could make a long-term difference. The awarding of this $300 million shows that Clean Cities will continue to look at today instead of thinking about tomorrow.
Reply