Science: Last month, US Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the Department of Energy (DOE) was putting the brakes on research into automotive hydrogen fuel cells.
Chu cites the cost and durability of vehicle fuel cells, the inability to store large volumes of hydrogen fuel, the absence of a carbon-free way of generating the hydrogen, and the need to build a nationwide refueling infrastructure.
The issue came down to a simple question, says Chu: "Is it likely in the next 10 or 15 or even 20 years that we will convert to a hydrogen-car economy? The answer, we felt, was no."
But many scientists and energy experts believe Chu asked the wrong question and, therefore, made the wrong call.
No alternative-vehicle technology will make a major impact on carbon emissions, petroleum use, or anything else within the next 20 years, they say, because it takes longer than that for a new technology to displace what is already on the road.
In the long run, they say only two technologies—hydrogen fuel cells and electric vehicles—are capable of getting the job done. And only one variation, plug-in hybrids, will be on the market anytime soon.
"There are uncertainties with both these technologies," says Joan Ogden, who heads the sustainable transportation energy program at the University of California, Davis. "So the idea of taking one off the table seems shortsighted."
I couldn’t agree with this more. I think Dr.Chu is wasting money with his opinion.We have put billions in hydrogen.
This isn’t the first time I have wholeheartedly disagreed with Chu’s direction for DoE.Take clean coal; are these companies wishfully thinking that it will work? As no one else has managed to get it to work on a large scale.
Let clean up and not continue to use dirty fuels.
Stay on the science not the people who are trying to buy us off.
Jim Jonas
The decision to propose eliminate the hydrogen vehicle program was a mistake. Hydrogen vehicles are much further along than Secretary Chu knows and he made the decision without learning anything from the automakers or DOE’s own panel of independent experts set up to advise the Secretary on hydrogen-related matters.
Furthermore, it’s sad to see this misplaced hydrogen vs. batteries debate continue when there shouldn’t be a debate in the first place. There are very few technology options we have to build clean vehicles and hydrogen is one of them. We need to pursue a portfolio of options.
See who else feels this way: the automakers, energy companies, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), American Lung Association (ALA), Electric Drive Transportation Association (EDTA), Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), The Stella Group, Ltd, the National Hydrogen Association (NHA), the U.S. Fuel Cell Council (USFCC)and the entire hydrogen and fuel cell industries:
http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/media/pressReleases/07may09_nhaUSFCC.pdf
http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/12/fight-for-hydrogen-funding/
http://www.phoenixvillenews.com/articles/2009/05/23/opinion/srv0000005405547.txt
http://www.earthtoys.com/news.php?section=view&id=10079
Hydrogen is by far the most futuristic fuel there is. Theres low emission cars that really arent different from any other car. Then theres all the natural gas based products like methanol that just have lower emissions-not pollution free-like methanol and propane that dont help much. But hydrogen only emits water and vapors. But hydrogen is hard to control, needs more technology, better storage methods, lower prices and no electric plug-ins! Electrics are our best choice for now. They run not even one drop on gasoline and added with geothermal,wind,solar and hydroelectric means of electricity, youve got a clean world with no complications!
Maybe someone can answer a question for me. If we have 30+ million cars emitting water vapor what is this going to do to the atmosphere? Are we solving one problem and creating another?
Hydrogen technology should move forward not just in the automotive industry.
I agree that putting that much water vapour into the atmosphere would cause just as much of a problem to the environment a we have already.