Bush Wants More Research Money for Hydrogen Cars

Reuters ^ | 1.30.04 | Reuters

[ambrose]

Bush Wants More Research Money for Hydrogen Cars

Fri January 30, 2004 06:13 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration will seek a 43 percent increase in federal funds to develop cars that run on hydrogen fuel and eventually have in place the service station infrastructure that will support the vehicles.

The $227 million in total research money is included in the government's budget for the 2005 spending year to be released by the White House on Monday, said an Energy Department official.

The money is part of President Bush's long-term initiative begun last year to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by developing hydrogen-powered fuel cells to run cars, trucks, homes and businesses.

The emissions-free vehicles would also cut pollution as their only by-product would be water.

The administration wants to have the hydrogen cars in the market and available to consumers at an affordable price near the end of the next decade.

However, many environmental groups say that is too long and believe U.S. oil imports could be reduced quicker if the government significantly boosted the mileage requirements for new gas-guzzling SUVs, pick-up trucks and minivans.

[ambrose]

ping.

[Mike4Freedom]

Anybody know where the ocean of hydrogen is that will be needed to fuel those cars?

He can't be planning on making the hydrogen, since that will take as much energy as you get out of burning the hydrogen.

These developments must be made by private money. Only when you stand to lose your own money do you have an incentive to make sure the plan makes sense.

[ElkGroveDan]

I'd normally make a joke like: "Before you know it he's going to want more money for the NEA"....but he's already done that. For gosh sakes, what's next?

[ambrose]

Hmmm, increase PBS funding?

[GeronL]

Is there anything Bush won't spend money on??

[arete]

We could always colonize the moon.

Richard W.

[ElkGroveDan]

Dare I predict a new "Great Society" (so far we've only spent $7 trillion on the last one)

[Porterville]

I can't figure out why som many of you hate Bush so bad, it is sick.... Are many of you subversive Democraps??? Sure act like it.

P.S. I think we are on to you.

[meenie]

I'm so glad the adults are in charge. He is our first MBA president. Come to think of it, he acts like an MBA.

[Daphne]

Bush sometimes spends money on stupid stuff, yeah, definitely, and this hydrogen thing is probably (and you never know) one of them.

But so did all the administrations in the past. What's new? (besides the deficit for Iraq war, but that sort of needed to happen).

And i think his motives to spend are usually good, which is more than you can say about some governments in the world.

[ElkGroveDan]

I don't hate Bush. I loved the Bush we elected. But of course politics is not about personality cults. We are starting to raise a few eyebrows over his spending like a drunken sailor on big government boondoggles. Even Rush Limbaugh has raised the issue.

[SunStar]

Is President Bush trying to lose the election?

[boris]

"Anybody know where the ocean of hydrogen is that will be needed to fuel those cars?"

Silly, silly, silly. As I frequently point out, H2 can be made by electrolysis or by conversion of natural gas (a nasty hydrocarbon). In both cases it is nothing but a big, inefficient storage battery.

Using electrolysis as an example, you need 68 kcal/mole to break apart water, usually at 70% efficiency. To satisfy the U.S. transportation needs, you would need 30-40 (possibly 50) 1,000-megawatt nuclear generating stations dedicated to doing nothing but making hydrogen.

Hydrogen liberates about 3.5 times as much energy per pound as gasoline but it is 11 times less dense so that on a volumetric basis (per gallon) it is only about 1/3 as 'efficient'. So your fuel tank will either give you 1/3 the mileage or be 3 times larger. This is as a cryogenic liquid...imagine citizens spilling liquid hydrogen on their feet at filling stations. Storage as a high-pressure gas is even more hopeless, since the density is nowhere near that of the liquid. The insulation requirements to keep the H2 from boiling off are also laughable...

--Boris

[DManA]

I know how you feel, Daphne. We are all trying so hard to find excuses for him. That was pretty feeble but I believe me, I understand.

And i think his motives to spend are usually good, which is more than you can say about some governments in the world.

[DManA]

You know I actually think he might be. The job is a horrible burdon on a man.

Is President Bush trying to lose the election?

[GeronL]

So is that grape kool-aid? =o)

[ladysusan]

Very interesting Boris. Here's a link to a usenet post by a brilliant chemist talking a little about the science and realities of hydrogen cas. Enjoy, guys!

[DBrow]

"that will take as much energy as you get out of burning the hydrogen. "

If you burn it, then the Carnot Cycle inefficiencies and the bottleneck of the Second Law makes the deal a bad one.

If you use a fuel cell, though, you skip the Carnot stuff and most of the Second Law, and gain some efficiency by skipping the thermal part of the conversion.

You don't get "new" energy, but it is a way of making energy portable without burning oil in the car- I think of it as a way of concentrating and packaging energy. Like using chemical energy in batteries, you put the energy in in the battery factory, store it in a dry cell, and drain it out in your flashlight.

My personal opinion is that we would need a new generation of nuke plants, perhaps using U and Pu from our weapons- when we or the Russians take a warhead offline, we still keep the pits and tampers and they can be fuel. (The Russians will soon start to ship us Pu and U, a deal they made with BC iirc)

Using solar to make hydrogen is better than using solar to make electricity- like wind power, you have to have hydrocarbon or nuke plant turbines spinning to quickly take up the load for a cloudy day or a windless day. If you are making and storing H2, though, fluctuations don't force utilities into rolling blackouts.

I think that someone should look into all the problems with H2 power and develop some useful models. It would be nice if private industry would do it, the best way, and maybe if the gummint research turns up something promising then private funds will pour into the field (like what happened with LN2 superconductors).

Link to fuel cell thermodynamics:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html

[greasepaint]

Is this money for fuel cell research,
or an electric car?
The reason I ask is, there is nothing new about
putting an electric motor in a car.