Posted on 01/09/2002 3:40:24 PM PST by John Jamieson
DETROIT -- The Bush administration launched a partnership today with domestic automakers to spur the growth of hydrogen fuel cells for the next generation of cars and trucks, hoping to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil while reducing tailpipe pollution.
The new program, called Freedom Cooperative Automotive Research, will also focus on developing a hydrogen refueling infrastructure, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said.
"The long-term results of this cooperative effort will be cars and trucks that are more efficient, cheaper to operate, pollution-free and competitive in the showroom," Abraham said at the North American International Auto Show.
The government hopes fuel cells will spur industry efforts to develop motor vehicle power systems that eventually will replace the internal combustion engine.
The new program replaces the Partnership for a New Generation Vehicle that was started by the Clinton administration to develop a vehicle that could attain 80 miles per gallon fuel efficiency.
The Energy Department and senior Bush administration policy officials have expressed little enthusiasm for that program, which was aimed at quadrupling automobile fuel economy by the middle of this decade.
"This new initiative that the Department of Energy is launching is exciting not only because it can replace gasoline as a way to power vehicles making America more energy independent, but it's pollution-free," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.
Fuel cells produce electricity from a chemical reaction in which hydrogen and oxygen are combined without a flame. The only byproduct is water.
In recent years, the cost of fuel cells has dropped sharply. Hydrogen can be produced from natural gas aboard vehicles or pure hydrogen can be used, though that would require development of a supply infrastructure.
Automobile fuel economy likely is to be a major issue when the Senate takes up energy legislation next month. Democrats are calling for the government to require increased auto fuel efficiency, especially for popular sport utility vehicles.
The New Generation partnership had pushed industry development of hybrid gasoline-electric cars now just entering the market. It also had focused industry attention on finding ways to improve fuel economy without reducing car size and zip.
Using advanced aerodynamics, new engine technologies and lighter composite materials, the automakers in the program developed prototypes of vehicles capable of getting more than 70 mpg, three times better than most cars now on the road. But commercial development of large numbers of these cars in the next few years, as once envisioned, was not expected.
Although Abraham supported the program as a senator from Michigan, shortly after he became energy secretary he said the program had outlived its usefulness because the auto industry was going in a different direction.
The Bush administration proposed slashing funding for the program as part of its first budget a year ago. However, Congress kept it alive, even as some environmental groups and the watchdog Taxpayers for Common Sense called the program an unnecessary subsidy for the car industry.
This new government-industry partnership "will further the president's national energy policy, which calls for increased research in hydrogen technology to diversify and enhance America's energy security," the Energy Department said.
Although several automakers -- including DaimlerChrysler AG, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. -- have said they expect to have fuel-cell vehicles in showrooms within the next four or five years, wide availability of such cars is probably a decade or more away.
On the Net:
Energy Department: http://www.energy.gov/
Copyright © 2002, The Associated Press
We're better off buying all the cheap energy we get from the middle east as long as we can. When theirs run out, we'll still have ours. Meantime we use just enough of ours to control their prices.
I agree. My MS thesis (not too many years ago) was on advanced vehicle technologies. Part of my MS requirement was also to write a proposal for this DOE project.
Although several automakers -- including DaimlerChrysler AG, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp. -- have said they expect to have fuel-cell vehicles in showrooms within the next four or five years, wide availability of such cars is probably a decade or more away.
Fuel Cell vehicles won't happen any time soon. The next evolving vehicle will be hybrid electric. People are not going to sacrifice PERFORMANCE for an expensive toy. Watch 'em in Califonia starting to back-up on their emmissions and "ZEV's" (Zero Emmision Vehicle) mandates they set forth back in the early 90's for this year.
A natural gas - Electric hybrid is what I predict when they get through playing with the gasoline-electric hybrids. There is already a fair infastructure in place for this. Fill your car up in your garage! Hybrids are on the market and the market for them will expand.
Even if you derive the hydrogen from oil or natural gas, the increased efficiency of the total fuel cell-electricity-electric motor-mechanical energy combination cycle is still sufficiently more efficient than the thermal engine-mechanical motion (gasoline or diesel)cycle to make it cost effective.
When compared to gasoline powered vehicles, LPG (light vehicles) emit about the same level of carbon monoxide. Results are better for larger heavier vehicles such as buses.
The primary safety concern is that LPG is heavier than air and tends to "pool" (in the event of a leak or accidental release). This makes it more susceptible to fires or explosions compared to other gaseous fuels such as natural gas (which is lighter than air and dissipates when released).
Propane (LPG) works best for heavier fleet vehicles relative to light vehicles primarily due to emissions. A primary focus of the DOE project above was to reduce the emissions of passenger vehicles - not larger heavier vehicles.
However, hybrid cars make very little sense. People that are now buying hybrids are paying about $11 a gallon for the gas they don't use!
But you first have to as you say "derive" the hydrogen from oil or natural gas. Remember most of your electricity produced in power plants is also derived from oil and natural gas. This factor was consider in many efficiency studies for those developing electric vehicles (so called Zero Emission Vehicles) because you gotta make the juice (burn oil, gas and coal) to charge the batteries.
Overall energy efficiency (from the power plant through the vehicle) was a little better. The problem was the technology for the batteries ain't there. Pure electric vehicles were argued to be "cost effective". Problem is they lack the PERFORMANCE of today's vehicles. In addition, the MAINTENANCE cost were also determined to be incredible. I wouldn't look for mass production of fuel cell or electric vehicles for several decades.
This is more likely a diversion from more promising near term solutions (hybrids - which are on the market)so the oil kings can continue to pull in the money. They don't want you to buy less.
Believe it or not there are also safety concerns with these vehicles (electric and fuel cell). Just a couple examples: you have to lighten the body of the vehicle and most are too "quiet" (can't hear em coming).
Gal of gas weights 6 pounds and produces 120,000 BTUS
Gal of gas contains about 1 pound of hydrogen C(n)H(2n+2) C=14 H=1.
Assume you can seperate the two for free. (You can't)
Throw away the 5 pounds of carbon and just use the 1 pound of hydrogen.
1 pound of hydrogen generates 61,000 BTUs.
You just doubled your cost, if you could do it at 100% eff.
Feel free to check my math.
Considering there's a finite supply of both, but that hydrocarbons break down into methane later in the process, the more intelligent choice is to break the plentiful number of hydrocarbons available. This would leave plenty of methane available for chemical feedstocks without the threat to quantity of methane available to future generations.
I've wondered if the hydrocarbons weren't actually formed in ancient history by fallen angels or their bodies from some condemnation. It might explain the natural inclination of so many environmentalists to oppose their man made consumption.
When driving in the city or accelerating say for example to pass another vehicle the electric motor kicks in on a universal drive system to compensate. These driving conditions are where your biggest emission problems occur. Starting and stopping frequently and accelerating.
You only use the electrical motor for short distances in the city and when accelerating. The combustion engine,when used, runs at its peak operating point constantly - further improving efficiency. The key is targeting the biggest inefficiencies in operating conventional vehicles.
Geez--do a Google search! There is plenty of documentation available on this. If you don't understand the efficiency advangate of non-thermal conversion that bypasses the Carnot thermal cycle engines, a dialog is hopeless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.