Slashdot Mirror
Funding For Automotive Fuel Cells Cut
rgarbacz writes "The US will stop funding research on automotive fuel cells and redirect the work towards stationary plants, because of slow progress on the research. Developing those cells and coming up with a way to transport the hydrogen is a big challenge, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in releasing energy-related details of the administration's budget for the year beginning Oct. 1. Dr. Chu said the government preferred to focus on projects that would bear fruit more quickly. The industry and the National Hydrogen Association criticized the decision and declared their intention to fight for funding. Dr. Chu also announced that funding for a coal gasification pilot project, cut by the Bush administration, will be reinstated. The Obama administration will also drop spending for research on the exploration of oil and gas deposits because the industry itself has ample resources for that, Dr. Chu said."
I mean... you stick them in the ground, and they stay there. It's really pretty consistent. If your tree walks away, it's probably not a tree. I don't know how much funding this needs, but if it is more than $0, it's too much.
% If I had a ( for every dollar wasted on fuel cells, what would I have?
Kneel Before Christ!
Its a new team in town, with a different set of friends that need to be 'greased'.
Its just typical ( shortsighted ) politics at work here. Nothing new.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I thought the real problem was creating the hydrogen in the first place. Not to mention the problem of compressing it to a point that it had a reasonable amount of energy per unit of volume.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that current methods of producing hydrogen for fuel cells was only slightly more intelligent than producing ethanol from corn.
On a qualitative argument they were a middle ground between current gas engines and electric engines. Slightly more energy efficient and less emissions but still holding a (more) explosive and volatile fuel on board. Electrical systems offer more benefits (they in general are more energy efficient) and have less logistical hurdles. There seemed like there was little reason to go the way of hydrogen. Basically they were an alternative, and thus received some initial funding. It just wasn't a very good alternative. Time to let it die
I'm pro biofuels, but how are they going to know what technology will pan out?
You never know. But wise investment involves making your best judgment based on what is known, and what is known is that fuel cell stacks cost an order of magnitude more than even a large li-ion battery pack, have no better range or fuelling time than EVs (the only exception to the latter being if you have the fuel super-compressed at the stations, which is both dangerous and makes the stations even more expensive), have 1/3rd the fuel-cycle efficiency, have half the lifespan in the fuel cell stack, have many more moving parts than an EV, fundamentally require new infrastructure for all modes of operation (versus EVs which only need new infrastructure for long trips), and in general involve having to deal with hydrogen -- a chemical that leaks through almost anything, weakens metals, enters pipes and follows them to their destination, destroys ozone, pools under overhangs, has an incredibly low ignition energy, burns in almost any fuel-air mixture, readily undergoes deflagration to detonation transitions, and is a general PITA to store and transport.
Hydrogen fuel cells have failed to advance sufficiently to become marketable, affordable, reliable products that are decisively better for the environment, despite getting the lion's share of research funding in the past decade. EVs are far closer to this, esp. with the modern fast-charging, long-range, nontoxic li-ion variants, and hence the pendulum is now swinging in the other direction.
Kneel Before Christ!
It's about time this was submarined. I don't know what kind of craziness has led to the obsession with fuel cells. Not only is there no hydrogen distribution infrastructure of any kind, but fuel cells still haven't gotten out of the spaceship era.
We'll be driving cars on Mr. Fusion power before we drive them on fuel cells, unless someone gets fuel cells that use something other than hydrogen working in a way that's suitable for automotive use.
Hydrogen-powered cells for autos are a pointless waste of time with out a LOT of pre-requisite technologies. Generating the Hydrogen is an energy-wasting PITA or involves oil. Storing it in a form that even comes close to the energy density of gasoline is extremely difficult. Compressing the Hydrogen is energy-intensive. (CNG gets a LOT more energy out of the same volume of compressed gas at an identical pressure, so NG actually makes sense to compress.)
There are a LOT of things we can do to reduce pollution before we have so much spare electricity lying around that we can crack and store Hydrogen in amounts large enough to feasibly power a car.
SirWired
It's had the lion's share of research funding for the past decade, and despite that, has been lapped on pretty much every front by EVs.
It's electric vehicles' turn.
Kneel Before Christ!
...if you think it's a tree but it gets up and walks away, then it probably Ent.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Hydrogen doesn't have the density we need and it's difficult to move.
Batteries. Focus on batteries, industrial solar thermal, and Nuclear.
That can solve are energy needs.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The hydrogen economy is a bit screwy anyway. While we already know very well how to run a car on methane, how to distribute and store methane (most homes get it through a pipeline already), and even how to retrofit existing cars for methane, AND how to synthesize methane given a good energy source, we've been throwing money down a hole for the "hydrogen economy".
That is, for a fuel we don't know how to store without it escaping and making the tank brittle in the process, that has additional hazards because it burns invisibly. Meanwhile, we're trying to come up with fuel cells to use it. It's a perfect recipe for looking like you care but delaying an actual solution for as long as possible.
That makes sense. The oil industry is already established and making tons in profits. They should be able to fund their own development.
Emerging technologies on the other hand sometimes need a boost.
Dual Opteron < $600
I question Chu's objective logic.
The U.S. sits between 2 of the largest sources of Hydrogen on this planet. Dangerous to ship? How about shipping it as Water? Then at the "Filling Station" Use Solar, and or Wind Electricity to separate the Hydrogen out. This is already being done in Norway.
Little known fact about liquid hydrogen: as per a NASA hydrogen safety guideline document I was reading a while back, air accidentally ingested with the hydrogen during the liquefaction process makes a solid explosive with the explosive power of TNT.
Kneel Before Christ!
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I was under the impression that current methods of producing hydrogen for fuel cells was only slightly more intelligent than producing ethanol from corn.
Uh, what? A fish without a bicycle? Look, ethanol from corn is stupid because it's not very energy positive and people eat corn, and corn depletes the soil unless you grow it in a guild with squash and beans, or at least rotate your crops. We don't even use crop rotation any more in big agribusiness; it's basically hydroponics in a soil medium. The corn is fertilized with, guess what, oil. Meanwhile, hydrogen is stupid because it's difficult to store and transport and you have to use [comparatively] exotic alloys with it because of problems with hydrogen embrittlement... oh, and fuel cells are energy-intensive and toxic to make, and they wear out and have to be replenished like everything else. However, we currently have a lot of power going to waste at night and we could be making hydrogen with it. If we're currently wasting it, and we start using it for Hydrogen, then even if it's only 40% efficient we're still vastly better off than we are today.
However, a better plan than either would be to grow craploads of algae in the desert, and use our extra power to run arc lamps to provide light at night to extend the photoperiod and thus speed up the growth cycle. The emissions from the power plants can be piped through algae beds and up to 80% of the CO2 captured for reuse. The algae can be used to make biodiesel and butanol, both of which can be burned in current vehicles, transported in the current trucks, and stored and pumped with the existing tanks and pumps.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
As far as I know, hydrogen fuel was always really an energy storage medium rather than a fuel in and of itself. While it may be the most common element in the universe, free H2 isn't especially abundant on Earth. If you could store it well, it would allow electric vehicles to have the same convenience as petroleum-powered vehicles.
The biggest problems with pure electric cars are that the range is limited and that you can't refill it in a matter of minutes. A pure battery-EV doesn't really allow any kind of long-distance road trip. This is the appeal of plug-in hybrids, it gives you range and easy refilling capability while potentially allowing zero-emissions driving during normal city driving/commuting. Although a hydrogen energy storage system would require new infrastructure, it would serve as a great long-term solution that fits with most peoples lifestyles.
As with any kind of EV, the 'green-ness' depends on the original source of the power. Even from fossil fuels it would probably be slightly better, since large fixed plants are more efficient and cleaner, but definitely better with wind/solar/nuclear/geothermal/whatever.
Note though, that the requirement for all of this is efficient, easy and safe storage, which has been going nowhere with plenty of funding. I think biofuels from non-food crops on non-food-producing land (i.e. not corn ethanol) are a more feasible long term solution, either with or without plug-in hybrid vehicles.
...require new infrastructure for all modes of operation (versus EVs which only need new infrastructure for long trips)
There was an engineer on the west coast who electrified his Honda CRX. His solution for long trips -- hitch a little cart on the back with a generator. You could even fuel these with propane bottles, and so avoid the whole petroleum infrastructure. Or, you could use the petroleum infrastructure, but use it to distribute biofuels for the generator modules.
It gets worse. Fuel cells use exotic metals (platinum namely).
That may be fine for a few experimental operations, but what happens when we try to put those in *millions* of vehicles? The price would quickly be impractical / unaffordable.
Yes, you would eventually get to a sustainable level for recycling, but platinum would take a very very long time to get to that level, platinum is just plain rare.
Well, part of the "summer driving season" prices are due to increased demand from more individuals and families taking long car trips on vacations (basic econ: fixed supply + increase in demand => higher prices). Another big difference in costs is that they tend to use different formulations and additives in the summer. Note that the change-over starts happening in May which just might explain the recent price increase you've been seeing. See if your location corresponds to the areas covered by the regulation. Note that even if you aren't you may still be obtaining gas from a refinery in a covered area, which only produces summer RFG for efficiency.
On the other hand, if you'd tried to argue that the gasoline refiners are deliberately shutting down refineries to decrease supplies and increase prices, you might be able to find some supporting evidence.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
Another poster pointed it out up above a little in the thread. It's called a generator trailer for long trips. Short trips (we'll call it 100 miles or less) are now adequately covered with existing battery tech, thousands of home built EV rides have proven this. And AC Propulsion had an interesting variation on the genny trailer, it attached in two points and then made an inline rigid "modular hybrid" that was easy to drive with and didn't have any of the "backing up" problems that some people might have with conventional trailers. Their high performance electric car + the genny trailer still fit inside a normal parking space as well, and gave the electric car an unlimited range using conventional fuels when it was really needed, just like any other normal car.
The main reason we don't have electric vehicles right now is that it is seriously disruptive technology that really screws with and threatens most established motor vehicle manufacturers and their kissing cuzzins in the oil industry. They have fought it severely and want to keep pushing overly complicated and overly expensive "hybrids", and keep throwing one off "concept cars" at the public, because they can make more "per unit" and they make more with repairs and faster replacements with the type of vehicles they make and sell now.
EVs are so simple and robust in design compared to most gasoline cars that built in quantity they can be cheap and last easily twice as long without major repairs. Even with today's average kilowatt hour rates, it is conceivable to only have around a 2-3 cents a mile driving cost. The savings right there might pay for your insurance and eventual battery pack replacement, and then some. think about how easy it will be every 5 or ten years to "upgrade" by just getting a new battery pack that will be more powerful and lighter, etc. You won't *need* to buy a new car near as often.
Either way, the Chinese and Indian builders will win here with really cheap and "good enough" electric cars for the masses, not those lame "start at 50 grand and go up from there" models you read about. They are going to have affordable electric cars out sooner than most other nations efforts, and will be able to stomp on prices. The only other company in the running now (of the majors) for real electric vehicles is Renault/Nissan with their tie in to the Better Place project, which is developing the whole EV stack, vehicles plus charging stations plus battery pack swapout stations. They are planning on using the subsidized cellphone and plan model for this. You'll get the vehicle cheaper upfront, and buy the electricity from them with some dedicated charging card. All the other electric vehicle makers are niche and boutique makers, all with high prices and very limited production runs, like Tesla.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yep. Obama's Energy Secretary pick, Steven Chu, is a Nobel prizewinner. While I think picking Geithner was a mistake because he was too beholden to a failed financial system, Chu's strong scientific background is leading to energy decisions based on sound scientific principles as opposed to lobbying and politics. If Obama fired Geithner and replaced him with Paul Krugman, there might actually be hope for a proper housecleaning in the financial industry, too.
Laissez lire, et laissez danser; ces deux amusements ne feront jamais de mal au monde. - Voltaire
A) We haven't built a plant in 30 years. How do you know that it is expensive when you have no data to back it up? Or have you looked at France's and Japan's data for their standardized reactor design?
B) Chernoby was so completely different from any reactor the US has ever implemented (including the lack of a containment dome) it is just pure FUD to even bring it up.
C) Recycling the so called waste will yield a sizeable amount of fuel and the remaining short lived waste could be stored in the mines the uranium ore came out of in the first place.
D) See C combined with: I thought the idea was to get away from coal?
Oh, and to E from the AC: Actually, we have about a few thousand year supply of Uranium in the US alone (Virginia) and that does not include sea water extraction. Breeder reactors also allow the production of more fuel. It is either a renewable or going to last so long that fusion will come about before we run out.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
1) Laptop batteries != EV batteries. Except in the case of Tesla; they're kind of doing their own thing, different from pretty much everyone else.
2) Despite the common notion, batteries are just one aspect of EV technology that's undergone major advancement. Just to pick a random example: IGBTs.
3) Fuel cell vehicles, while technically "electric", are traditionally abbreviated FCV.
Kneel Before Christ!
Hydrogen for cars mainly looked promising because the alternative non-carbon fuel was batteries, which ten years ago were nowhere close to the required performance. Then the explosion in mobile consumer electronics like laptops and cellphones brought a lot of battery research which resulted in high energy density Li-ion batteries and more recently fast-charging batteries that can be charged in a matter of minutes rather than hours. Basically developments in battery technology during the last decade has pretty much made hydrogen for automotive purposes obsolete before it was ready. There are still some issues with batteries ( mainly their high price compared to present petroleum prices) but the more recent battery generations are up to the job, and if you look at stuff that is at the engineering stage and will likely be commercialized in the near future, hydrogen seems to be a solution looking for a problem. In my opinion that application will likely be aviation where liquid hydrogen can offer an unbeatable energy/weight ratio ( in fact the highest possible of all chemical fuels ). Of course at the moment liquid hydrogen is far too expensive to produce in a CO2 neutral manner as compared to jet fuel, but that may change as Oil reserves dwindle.
Right off the bat, as in other things, one size doesn't fit everyone. With that said, the "problem" with the attached generator trailer doesn't exist, people in suburbia would park it in their garage (where it can act as an emergency home generator, something people might want anyway) and folks in town don't even have to buy them, they could be *rented* for the few times a year when they go to the grandparents, etc.
A hundred mile range pure EV is good enough for millions of drivers today, they just don't drive more than that per day. I have read average commute in the US is 33 miles. And being a pure EV, it doesn't have to tote around the ICE and fuel tank, a significant weight reduction, meaning the battery bank is now a more normal load and can be larger than the battery bank in a plug in hybrid, and the vehicle will still weigh less. And when they do need that ICE, the generator trailer, being on its own axle it is easier to tow than carry. Towing occasional decent weight is always easier than carrying, that extra axle works.
Really, there's very little downside to it and it isn't a kludge, it's a remarkably workable and common sense solution.
Cramming an ICE AND the electric drive train AND the batteries AND the liquid fuel tank all in something that is supposed to be light weight is the big kludge. It also makes the vehicle *twice* as expensive as it needs to be, and *significantly* heavier once you start talking about a plug in hybrid with even 40 miles range, let alone a hundred. Most of the time, for most people, they won't be using the generator so it wouldn't be attached, so as a purchase option or once in awhile special trip rental, there's little downside to it. With a hybrid, you are already buying the whole package anyway, jso if you split that up, with the generator part on a trailer instead of built in, you don't HAVE to haul it with you all the time.
If the range you need to drive daily is just too close to "batteries flat" stage, you don't need an electric then, just get a normal gas or diesel and be done with it (my datsun diesel pickup gets 40 mpg!)
My next ride, a project vehicle, will be electric (but I will retain the diesel, I like choice), probably build one of the chevy s-10 conversion kits, they keep getting cheaper.
That is simply wrong. The "cost of a large battery pack that can provide > 300 miles range per charge" depends on the chemistry, of course, but excluding the titanates, you're looking at $0.35 to $0.50 per watt hour. A Tesla or Volt-like vehicle gets about 200Wh/mi. That's $21k to $30k. Fuel cell stacks are about $10/W. A 30kW fuel cell stack -- which *also* needs a large battery pack for current buffering -- costs $300k An order of magnitude more.
As for the safety of *any* hydrogen system, check out NASA's handling guidelines. People who make money on hydrogen systems can say whatever
they want, but the facts about hydrogen are the facts.
Kneel Before Christ!
Instead of doing this, why don't we grow rats, and have cats eat them. Then we harvest some of the cats, and kill the others to feed to the rats.
Bruce Perens.
Thank you. If I had mod points I'd mod you up. People believe lies and myths about nuclear power. The fuel can be reprocessed and recycled. About 97% can be reclaimed. The remainder has valuable medical isotopes that can be extracted. The residual amount can be bombarded with neutrons to reduce it's halflife down to the point where it's easily manageable.
We should immediately begin constructing new reactors globally. We need to build something like 3TW of new power generation to get the rest of the world to a standard of living approximating that of the USA... Think about 3TW of continuous power. It's impossible without nuclear or coal... Why do you want to go backwards in technology? By far the highest energy per unit is found in nuclear... we must rapidly roll out nuclear plants, for those are the only kind that suit our needs.
Fusion is seriously around the corner... we only need to get about 3 times more efficient to reach ignition. It's a walk in the park with the proper funding...
Wrong. There's such a glut of oil that tankers have nowhere to go. On top of that, gas prices dropped like a rock over the last two year with only meager price hikes.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Wrong. The motor, motor controller, in fact EVERYTHING about an EV is a solved problem, bar the energy store. Fuel cells and batteries are two very different means of storing energy, so (except in so far as new materials discovered may help, etc) fuel cell research doesn't do a jot towards building battery EVs.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
Fuel cells for cars are interesting, but hydrogen is over-hyped. Vehicles powered by batteries or capacitors are also emission-free (looking at the vehicle) and viable and promising. At least for distances less then 30 miles (which so happens to constitute more than 95% of all trips). So it's not a critical technology but it's a "nice to have" technology. Besides, like Chu says, hydrogen powered cars are looking at a long list of pesky and fairly fundamental problems which will take time to solve.
I applaud the decision to set up 8 smaller research establishments for 5 years instead of "one big one". Less photo opportunities perhaps, but (taking into account that they will work with local research centers and with industry) more chance of someone having a bright idea. And long enough to make it attractive for someone considering what field to specialize in to choose energy research.
I also like the decision to let the government stop looking for oil and gas. We have private industries that are quite adept at doing that, and (as Chu says) they have plenty of money to fund exploration. So pouring government funding into it is a dead waste. It's nice to be able to pick up the tab for costly and risky research for your oil-industry buddies, but that doesn't help the public.
I think this shows what can happen when you put an actual scientist in charge of research. And yes, Chu's freedom of action is severely limited by previous commitments, including the one to do research and produce material for nuclear weapons.