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.
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.
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!
The start of a LISP program?
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.
Not more efficient. 1/4 to 1/2 as efficient, between the electrolysis and the fuel cell itself. Li-ion batteries are nearly lossless, chargers are usually around 92-93% efficient, and the grid is 92.8% efficient.
Hydrogen fuel cells were researched, despite its huge cost, durability, and efficiency problems, because at the time it did so much better than EVs in terms of range and charge time. But the fill time on FCVs has been going *up* as their range has increased, and the range hasn't gone up nearly as much as EVs have -- the best FCVs being passed out to limited numbers of people on a rental basis (because they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars each) have worse range than the Tesla Model S or the T-Zero.
Kneel Before Christ!
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.
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.'"
A pretty hardcore lisp.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
No it's not. Well, yes to the Volt, but the others are non-plug-in parallel hybrids, whereas the Volt is a plug-in series hybrid and the Metric Mind AC Honda (which I believe is the one the GPP mentioned) is a pure plug-in electric with optional range extender trailer. A fuel range-extender for long trips means that the car's electric-only range isn't an issue, while being able to charge from the grid means that in practice, very little fuel is actually consumed.
And the fact that you can build the equivalent of those big-company factory cars in your garage and achieve fairly similar performance and practicality says a lot about how hard building one of these cars is NOT.
Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
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.