[Chuckwagon]

Excerpt from interesting article:

"America's energy security is threatened by our dependence on foreign oil. The President is committed to the successful development of commercially viable, emissions-free fuel cell vehicles. In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush announced a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to develop the technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells to power cars, trucks, homes and businesses with no pollution or greenhouse gases. Combined with the FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) initiative, President Bush is proposing a total of $1.7 billion over the next five years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, hydrogen infrastructure and advanced automotive technologies."

Read more at http://www.georgewbush.com/Energy/Brief.aspx

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

Excerpt from interesting article:

"America's energy security is threatened by our dependence on foreign oil. The President is committed to the successful development of commercially viable, emissions-free fuel cell vehicles. In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush announced a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to develop the technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells to power cars, trucks, homes and businesses with no pollution or greenhouse gases. Combined with the FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) initiative, President Bush is proposing a total of $1.7 billion over the next five years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, hydrogen infrastructure and advanced automotive technologies."

Read more at http://www.georgewbush.com/Energy/Brief.aspx

more interesting is that fact is in his advertising webpage, and not in an actual law or other hard written thing yet.

 

[Toshi]

more interesting is that fact is in his advertising webpage, and not in an actual law or other hard written thing yet.

yup. talk is cheap.

 

[llkoolkeg]

Y'all are right. He shouldn't propose such things except from the opened hatch of a prototype hydrogen landspeeder.

 

[DRB]

Y'all are right. He shouldn't propose such things except from opened hatch of a prototype hydrogen landspeeder.

But don't you think it is the least bit disingenuous that he brings it up now with nothing more than a blurb on his website?

 

[llkoolkeg]

But don't you think it is the least bit disingenuous that he brings it up now with nothing more than a blurb on his website?

He's a politician isn't he? They can't even rub one out without first paying(with taxpayer money) a think tank to write a position paper with contingency plans for what to say and do should somebody walk in on them midway.

 

[Westy]

Um, like where do we get the hydrogen from. Last time I checked you still have to burn something to make electricity to get the hydrogen.

 

[llkoolkeg]

We'd just spend twice as much total energy to extract it(H) from our drinking water than we would otherwise use with good ol' internal combustion...and then we'd all have to walk around in those unfashionable "Dune" outfits looking for a cactus to cut open and squeeze the pulp from.

 

[syadasti]

Y'all are right. He shouldn't propose such things except from the opened hatch of a prototype hydrogen landspeeder.

Canada has had fuel cell powered public transit bus for years - they actually give a sh*t about these things instead of just bringing it up again during election time to act like he has a plan

 

[syadasti]

We'd just spend twice as much total energy to extract it(H) from our drinking water than we would otherwise use with good ol' internal combustion...and then we'd all have to walk around in those unfashionable "Dune" outfits looking for a cactus to cut open and squeeze the pulp from.

Current fuel cell systems have fuel reformers on board that allow you to use almost any hydrocarbon fuel. When a cheap/environmentally friendly hydrogen process is created and the delivery infrastructure is created, they can take the reformer out of the equation...

 

[-BB-]

OK... I have a question about these fuel cells. Just like Westy said, yeah they burn clean and all, and we want to use them to decrease our foriegn oil dependence... but how the heck do they MAKE the fuel for the fuel cells?

Burning coal, oil, natural gas, or nuclear power I would assume.
I doubt they are going to have big old windmills and solar cells to produce teh energy for these "cells". If this is the case, then how the F are we going to change anything?

 

[syadasti]

It takes energy, may that be from hydrocarbon fuel, wind, solar, tidal, nuclear, etc...to extract and refine any fuel - hydrocarbon or just plan hydrogen, but fuel cell cars are more efficient than ICE. Also most large scale electric operations are more efficient than individual ICE. There are safer newer forms of nuclear power - breed reactors etc - but the public is afraid of anything with the word nuclear in it (even though the sun IS a huge fusion reactor).

Whatever the case, there are plenty of superior alteratives out there, its just a matter of investing in the infrastructure to support it. Oil lobbies having been fighting it tooth and nail for ages, but are starting to do their own research into cause they know it will change sooner or later...

Will hydrogen cost too much?
• The National Academy of Sciences/National research Council studied this question. Data provided in the NRC report show that the cost of hydrogen per mile driven ought to be between 27% to 52% lower than the cost of gasoline at $1.80/gallon in a conventional car, and between 3% more to 32% less than the cost of gasoline used in a hybrid electric vehicle. MIT, Arthur D Little, and Argonne National Laboratory studies also confirm the finding that they are cheaper than ICE...
• Even if hydrogen ultimately is more expensive by weight or volume, hydrogen cars are much more efficient than gasoline cars, thus making hydrogen very competitive on a cost per mile basis. Fuel cell vehicles are 50 percent efficient, compared to perhaps 15 percent for gasoline combustion engines. On this basis, the per-mile costs for fuel cell vehicles are comparable to gasoline vehicles even with today’s prototypes.

• Although fossil fuels will be used to produce hydrogen in the medium term, in the long term hydrogen can be derived largely from renewable sources. Gasoline and other hydrocarbon fuels, on the other hand, can only be derived from fossil fuels.

What’s important about where the hydrogen comes from? Some people say hydrogen should only come from renewable energy sources like wind or solar power. These people want to assure that hydrogen delivers its maximum environmental potential since renewably derived hydrogen is a truly zero emission fuel. Others say that renewable energy should never be used to generate hydrogen, at least not until 15% to 20% of our energy is generated renewably. Until then, they want to use renewable energy to displace coal-fired electric generation.
• Clearly, renewable hydrogen is the most beneficial end point but the scarcity of renewable generation and its cost suggest most hydrogen will come from natural gas in the short term. This will provide significant benefits to society and facilitate the commercialization of hydrogen.
• Meantime, renewables will find the market to which they are best suited given their cost, distance from market and other factors.
• As the amount of available renewable energy grows, hydrogen can actually provide a benefit, by allowing storage of intermittent energy such as wind power at times of slack demand from the grid.

Will the investment in fuel cells and hydrogen overlook alternatives, like fuel efficiency?
• Our energy security needs are too great to limit our options to any technology. The U.S. Department of Energy supports research into renewable energy, efficiency, hybrid vehicles and advanced combustion systems. It is in the nation’s interest to pursue all the promising options, and that is just what the DOE has proposed.
• Federal research support for hydrogen and fuel cells is on the increase, but from a small base. Hydrogen is simply becoming a mainstream energy option, not the only option.
• Requested DOE research funding for FY 2005 seeks more for hybrid vehicles than for fuel cell vehicles ($92 million/$77.5 million).
• Requested DOE research funding for FY 2005 seeks about as much for hybrid vehicles as for hydrogen. ($92 million/$95 million).
• Requested DOE research funding for FY 2005 seeks about as much for biofuels as for hydrogen ($81 million/$95 million).

 

[Toshi]

also, even tho the energy needs to come from somewhere, it seems that pollution controls could be more effectively policed at large energy producing plants, and these plants don't have to be coal or oil burning: wind, hydroelectric, nuclear (gasp ) or even something funky like wave action if you're into utopian schemes.

 

[Tenchiro]

I love the idea of Hydrogen fuel cell cars, and telling the middle east to go F themselves. But calling it the "FreedomCAR"?!?


Ghey!

 

[LeeOz]

Funny that Bush "is committed to the successful development of commercially viable, emissions-free fuel cell vehicles" but won't ratified the Kyoto Protocol

But of course it's not about environment but just how we can be independent with our energy sources. As long as we fine who gives a sheet about the rest of the planet right!

 

[RhinofromWA]

..... or even something funky like wave action if you're into utopian schemes.

I cna see it now....

"...but think of the little fishies and their precious ecosystem at the location of your wave generator....poor fishies ...what are you a republican!"

 

[syadasti]

I cna see it now....

"...but think of the little fishies and their precious ecosystem at the location of your wave generator....poor fishies ...what are you a republican!"

They are just wings that move around in the water on pivots due to tidal energy and convert kinetic energy into electricity - they won't have too much impact...

GWB doesn't give a sh*t about the environment. He won't ratify Kyoto, he wants to drill the Arctic so gas stays cheap for less than 6 months - thats really worth it , he wants to build roads through national parks so they can cut down national forests, etc... He's from the oil industry for crying outloud...

I saw interviews with republican outdoorsmen and environmentalists (republican environmentalist, sounds like an oxymoron to me, heh) and it seems a lot of them are going to vote against him for not keeping his outdoor/environmental promises.

BTW, global warming models have underpredicted the rise in temperatures observed - its happening, but hey - lets all go for the short term and let our children suffer :eviltongu

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

the reason why energy plans have not been going yet, is as, with everything else in
the universe, MONEY.


but not the money in a sense that it would be more expensive. gas is already getting very expensive in the US, and soon probably will get to the point of being impractically expensive, as is already in other places.

in peru, where the average person makes 150 dollars a month, i pay $4 per gallon. here is has been economically impractical for quite a while, so since long time ago, we use hydro electricity (75%), and natural gas powered cars (about $1.5 a gallon).

i think, in the US, the change is not because of how more expensive it would be for most americans (probably would be cheaper, considering rising prices os gas), BUT how much money those who own the energy business would NOT make for allowing such a shift.

 

[RhinofromWA]

They are just wings that move around in the water on pivots due to tidal energy and convert kinetic energy into electricity - they won't have too much impact...

GWB doesn't give a sh*t about the environment. He won't ratify Kyoto, he wants to drill the Arctic so gas stays cheap for less than 6 months - thats really worth it , he wants to build roads through national parks so they can cut down national forests, etc... He's from the oil industry for crying outloud...

I saw interviews with republican outdoorsmen and environmentalists (republican environmentalist, sounds like an oxymoron to me, heh) and it seems a lot of them are going to vote against him for not keeping his outdoor/environmental promises.

BTW, global warming models have underpredicted the rise in temperatures observed - its happening, but hey - lets all go for the short term and let our children suffer :eviltongu

I was being sarcastic.... yeesh! I even used the phrase "fishies" to make it sound funny....guess my smilies weren't enough. lol

As far as building roads thru national parks to cut them down.... uh yeah. The fact that the wilderness initiative closes down all maintenance access and stops care of the forrests leaving complete tracts of land a ticking time bomb....that is better. Remember summer of 2003 forrest fire season? ....anyone ready for 2004? Little melodramatic of you I must say.

BTW making a wave generator will have an effect on the surrounding area...it can't help but have an effect. The scale that would be needed to be beneficial and the network supporting structures, etc all will enter into the equation. Is it a bad trade off? You are talking to a conservative....neaky: Bring it! But the fish huggers might raise a stink.

 

[-BB-]

They are just wings that move around in the water on pivots due to tidal energy and convert kinetic energy into electricity - they won't have too much impact...

The other option is to sink a big "piston" and attach a float to the top via cable, chain or whatever. As the waves pass, the float goes up and down thus driving the piston... add a coil and some magnets and viola... energy.

I think that you could probably get more energy from less "area" that way. Plus, you could design the part on the bottom to support artificial reefs thus placating the fish huggers. If they beotch too much, they can "SLEEP WITH THE FISH" :evil: :devil: :nuts:

 

[Chuckwagon]

yup. talk is cheap.

If you read the article, it goes on to list what has and has not already been accomplished, and gives timelines for what is to be completed when in the future.

 

[syadasti]

If you read the article, it goes on to list what has and has not already been accomplished, and gives timelines for what is to be completed when in the future.

Fuel cell technology development has much more to do with the companies in the industry rather than who is in office - they federal funding they get is minute compared to other programs the government invests in...

Besides that one of the leading companies for car use (Balmer sp?) isn't even American - they are Canadian...

 

[Toshi]

If you read the article, it goes on to list what has and has not already been accomplished, and gives timelines for what is to be completed when in the future.

reading articles is no fun

anyway, that "90 of the 105" suggestions in his old energy plan were implemented is just about meaningless to me.

 

[TCoop924]

Besides that one of the leading companies for car use (Balmer sp?) isn't even American - they are Canadian...

Companies name is Ballard Power.

Anyways, the thing with fuel cells is they do have a place in certain areas...mainly as a possible substitute for the gasoline fueled IC-engine. But, like it's been said/eluded to before, it actually takes more energy to make the hyrdogen than the energy you get out of the fuel cell. More importantly, the well-to-wheel (WTW) efficiency of a fuel cell car is actually not nearly as high as one might expect..it's only ~26% (that is for a small FC vehicle...think Honda insight size). The WTW of a typical IC-engine car is 15%. Of course, hybrids (sorta right direction, though not sustainable) have even a higher efficiency between 21 to 29%.

Personally, I'm all about the idea of BIODIESEL!...runs in any diesel engine (which inherently get good gas mileage due to design) and reduce emissions HUGE!...and it's a renewable fuel! Hoorah.

 

[TCoop924]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add this bit too....fuel cells (besides the whole where to get the H2 from dilemma) are not even making us more energy independent. They would only shift the area of our dependence from the Middle East to Russia and South Africa. Most of the hydrogen fuel cells out there use a nafion-111 membrane and a platinum catalyst to facilitate the chemoelectric reaction. Platinum is the problem....who has it? Russia and South Africa primarily.