Congress restores hydrogen funding with $187 million in appropriations bill
by Sebastian Blanco on Oct 16th 2009 at 1:54PM 
Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu is not getting his way in Washington. Recently (and, at this point, still allegedly) he said that he "would put every cent into electric cars." The Senate, though, has other plans and has now restored almost all of the hydrogen funding money that the DOE slashed in May. Back in July, the Senate hinted that it would fight back against the DOE cuts when the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee marked up the FY 2010 DOE budget and then restored hydrogen vehicle funding. Yesterday, the full Senate made it official.
As part of an appropriations bill that the House had previously approved, Congress has appropriated $187 million for continued research and development for hydrogen fuel cell cars. Jerome Hinkle, vice president of government affairs for the National Hydrogen Association, said he believes that the Obama Administration has "made peace" with the idea of hydrogen cars. Obama is expected to sign the appropriations bill when it reaches his desk.
[Source: Washington Post]
Photo by cliff1066™. Licensed under Creative Commons license 2.0.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mark Kiernan 2:10PM (10/16/2009)
Congress = dumba**es = pork
Reply
miles 2:45PM (10/17/2009)
No doubt. H2 is an astoundingly stupid way to store electricity.
Woodenbee 3:51PM (10/16/2009)
Yeah We should let corporations run EVERYTHING! yeah no regulations, let the market rule everything yeah! yeah corporations are unelected, yeah, drown government in a bathtub,corporations are awesome role models for ethical and fiscal responsibility!! oh wait that's a complete lie, which completely exposes conservative dogma as a Corporate manufactured pack of lies, based on the ignorant prejudices of the republican voters, wow, what a bunch of morons!
Reply
Mark Kiernan 4:34PM (10/16/2009)
The only corporation I have respect for is Google ;)
Boyprodigy1 5:51PM (10/16/2009)
@ Mark
+1 They make so many other corporations look like complete idiots and they make it look easy. They also do it on purpose. Golf clap for Google!
toast2042 4:52PM (10/16/2009)
Let's not trust the Nobel-winning professional we confirmed for the role, let's reward our industry cronies, instead!
We should rename the Senate to something more descriptive, like, Council of Oligarchs.
Reply
Throwback 8:45PM (10/16/2009)
Unlike Dr Chu, congressmen can be voted out of office. If you don't like the job they are doing vote for someone else.
Sean 11:12PM (10/16/2009)
Amen, brother!
Dave D 5:12PM (10/16/2009)
Can someone find and post the names of the folks in the house and senate who pushed this? I think it needs to be something that is made very aware and very public with the upcoming elections.
Reply
Serge 5:46PM (10/16/2009)
From the source article:
"It's the right set of priorities," said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), a leader in the effort to fund the technology.
Oh, that makes sense now: http://dorgan.senate.gov/north-dakota/ncht/
Patrick 9:56AM (10/19/2009)
This money for hydrogen and fuel cells is wise investment and an affordable one. It allows us to make sure we're embracing a portfolio of clean energy technologies, not just putting all our eggs in one basket. Have you seen what's happening around the rest of the world--if the U.S. doesn't keep its leadership position, Germany and Japan are ready to take over and then we can be importing the technology 5 years from now just like we are now with batteries: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601209&sid=a8whluazsvdg.
Congress has supported hydrogen and fuel cells in both the House and the Senate and on both sides of the aisles (Democrats and Republicans). There isn't just one champion for these technologies--there are hundreds of companies, hundreds of Members of Congress and hundreds of thousands of people.
Last vote in the House: 308-114
Last vote in the Senate: 80-17
(These votes reflect the whole Energy&Water appropriations, not just hydrogen and fuel cells.)
Dave D 12:04PM (10/19/2009)
@Patrick,
Congress voting on something means LESS THAN NOTHING. This same august body has voted in favor of slavery, segregation and women were not allowed to vote, etc, etc during it's long and wonderful history. There is nothing magic about being in congress that gives a person the slightest bit of wisdom. Just people, mostly lawyers, who don't want to work for a living.
In fact they display less intelligence than the average person because they are actually incented to do the wrong things by lobbyist and things that protect a few constituents in their district and don't care if it harms the rest of the country.
There is nothing that makes any sense about hydrogen from an economic, physics, or even common sense. Every company supporting it has an interest in making money because it exists.
Show me a single way it's more efficient than anything else? Show me a single calculation that shows it's more efficient and cheaper to use hydrogen rather than just using the natural gas from which it is derived! Seriously, show me one SINGLE way that you could defy the laws of physics, convert natural gas to hydrogen, figure out how to transport and store it...and get more energy than you could have had by using CNG to start with....oh, and the CNG vehicles and infrastructure exists today without anyone else spending Billions of Dollars of money we don't have!!!
People are looking for a way to get paid to create a bunch of expensive technology that waste all the energy in the natural gas it comes from.
And do not even bother to get started on producing natural gas from water with electrolysis. That is even more wasteful.
Patrick 11:33AM (10/20/2009)
Wow. Anarchy lives on I guess.
If you're interested in real numbers to show the efficiency and intelligence of using hydrogen, see this paper which was published in August in a professional journal. I'm giving you the link to the author's original manuscript. If you want the published version, you can pay for it. It has citations and explanations galore. Enjoy: http://www.h2gen.com/Uploads/file/Battery_vs_FuelCell_EVs.pdf
The bottom line is that there are many technologies that we need to pursue which will help us meet the extreme energy and transportation challenges we face today. Like it or not, hydrogen can provide a lot of the solutions we need and that's why it deserves our attention and investment along with other clean technologies. How do we know this? Because the hydrogen technologies of today are working in the hands of real people and the technologies of tomorrow are currently being demonstrated in the laboratory. We need to keep the pipeline going to get the next generation of technologies out of the lab and into the hands of real people.
EINow 5:53PM (10/16/2009)
Congress made the right move. We cannot afford to take hydrogen out of the race if we hope to stabilize our climate at levels safe for humanity. BEVs and Hydrogen FCVs are the only potentially truly zero-emissions platforms we have today. While batteries are effective for local use, they become impractical as driving distances, vehicle size, and load increase. Hydrogen can be used to meet long distance (quick refuel), and heavy load hauling. Both technologies need public support to get off the ground (i.e., infrastructure needs to be deployed). We need both to make any progress toward climate stabilization. It is way to early to pick favorites.
http://einow.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/hydrogen-and-batteries-driving-the-climate/
Reply
Serge 5:56PM (10/16/2009)
We already have a long distance infrastructure in place. ER-EVs like the Volt will allow us to maximize our investment in current infrastructure while transitioning to full electric infrastructure at pace with technological progress. In 10 years time lithium air batteries will allow BEVs to have a 1,000 mile range. Why waste time and money on useless hydrogen infrastructure when we should be investing every available dollar and cent into upgrading electric infrastructure and speeding up advanced battery research?
EINow 6:26PM (10/16/2009)
I believe you've answered your own question. Advanced batteries are not here yet. Progress has certainly been made, and will continue to be made. If we can reach 1,000 miles (or even less) with lithium air batteries, fantastic. If we can reach power densities comparable to fuel cells so that we can transport goods with batteries, that's great too. If we can recharge batteries fully in minutes rather than hours, or establish battery trading posts, awesome. But the fact of the matter is all of those accomplishments require time and money, and there is no guarantee they will come through. Hydrogen fuel cell costs need to come down, and durability needs to be improved, but tremendous gains have been made. At present, the range, load capability, and refueling time of hydrogen fuel cell systems are superior to battery systems. Both hydrogen and battery based electric drive cars have tremendous growth potential that we are only beginning to tap. The task is huge: we have a tremendous amount of cars, heavy duty trucks and buses to replace; all with varying driving patterns and requirements. At this stage in the game, it's not batteries or hydrogen, its both, and its both in a big way.
skierpage 6:43PM (10/16/2009)
(sigh)
Here's the science:
Hydrogen doesn't currently work for climate change. If you make hydrogen from fossil fuel like natural gas it produces a lot of CO2; it's more efficient to burn the fossil fuel in the car engine. And if you make hydrogen with electrolysis of water, it takes several times more electricity than recharging batteries for the same amount of electric energy sent to the motor. Generating electricity from renewables is hugely expensive, so hydrogen from renewables is hugely expensive.
Here's the PR:
Oil companies love hydrogen because it gives them a role in an electrically-powered future. Oil companies then claim it's environmental because there's no emissions at the tailpipe. When someone points out all the fossil fuel used to make hydrogen, oil companies say "Well some day we'll make it with renewable energy". To which the correct response should be a) "Let's see your commitment to doing that!" and b) "Fine, we'll spend research dollars on renewable energy (that's required for H2 to be good for the environment) and battery electric vehicle technology (that are the basis for fuel cell vehicles) until we see that hydrogen from renewables is realistic." Chu seems to believe b) because he's smart but politicians disagree because they're corrupt.
GM, Mercedes, and Toyota repeatedly make the point that to get an 80% CO2 reduction by 2050 (which most politicians support BECAUSE THEY'LL BE OUT OF OFFICE AND DEAD), we'll need hydrogen fuel cell vehicles as well as battery electric vehicles. That's probably true. So let's have an honest conversation about hydrogen from renewables. Unlike BEVs that are right now the cheapest way to go 40 miles, hydrogen from renewables is hugely expensive in the car, in the fuel production, in the infrastructure. What and how will make consumers pay those costs?
DasBoese 10:02PM (10/16/2009)
Your congress is making an incredibly dumb move. We cannot afford to waste money, time and resources on hydrogen if we hope to stabilize our climate at levels safe for humanity. BEVs, biofuel-capable cars and hybrids of the two are zero-emissions platforms we have today, and will become the predominant types of vehicle in the 21st century because they can be seamlessly phased in using existing infrastructure.
Demanding 1000-mile batteries is unrealistic for the same reason that nobody needs a 1000-mile fuel tank: No normal human is able to drive that distance straight.
A realistic demand would be a 200 - 300 mile range with fast charging of around 15 minutes, which coincides with recommended times for taking a break during long-distance driving. Battery technology that allows this has been demonstrated and is on its way to being commercialized. Some that employ novel production methods and materials will of course take a while and be expensive first, others that require mere modifications of existing manufacturing techniques and tweaking of chemistries will arrive a good deal sooner with no additional cost to the final product.
No hypothetical breakthrough in hydrogen technology allowable by the laws of physics will ever allow it to be competitive.
No amount of whining about "too early to tell" and "picking favorites" is going to change that. Science is neither fair nor democratic, and it doesn't give a rat's ass.
Chris M 2:36AM (10/17/2009)
I checked out that webpage, and the argument for H2 was based on a simple graphic from GM that implied that battery electrics were limited to light duty "city" and "intra-urban" but were insufficient for "Highway cycle" or "Hiway". Ironically , the same graphic implied that the "EREV" like the Volt was barely adequate for "Highway cycle" and insufficient for "Hiway" (No, I have no idea what the difference is supposed to be).
But even worse for the H2 promoters, that same graphic implies that H2 fuel cells are inadequate for heavy duty highway use, like for Semi trucks.
Is that the best argument the H2 promoters can come up with?
EINow 9:44PM (10/17/2009)
A few things here. Hydrogen shows promise in the heavy duty sector today (check out Vision Motor Industries), batteries do not. Fuel cells have shown that they can be used to meet today's driving demand (Toyota's Highlander FCV-adv has a 470+ mile range, fully functions in temps as low as -30degC, and refuels in under 10 minutes). Battery vehicle deployment is not seamless using existing infrastructure. Plugging in one car is the equivalent of adding another house to the neighborhood transformer. Two or three cars charging in the same neighborhood could easily lead to electric overload. As far a big oil goes, I would like to see a big oil company that is behind hydrogen. They have been tepid at best; profits are greatest using the status-quo. We need to remember that there are hurdles to overcome in both hydrogen fuel cell and battery platforms. Batteries are great, and should get better, but as of today, they don't have the range, power density, or recharging capability needed to meet all driving patterns (namely hauling and long-range). They are potentially an important part of the solution, just as hydrogen is. We have a huge problem on our hands (eliminating emissions from transportation) we need as many tools in our toolbox as possible.