DOE to slash fuel cell vehicle research

The Department of Energy's proposed budget boosts research on energy efficiency and renewable energy sources but makes cuts in hydrogen fuel cell vehicles because the technology is many years from being practical.

The DOE published details of its $26.4 billion fiscal 2010 budget request on Thursday, and Energy Secretary Steven Chu held a news briefing to cover the highlights. (Click for a PDF of his presentation.)

"We asked ourselves, 'Is it likely in the next 10 or 15, 20 years that we will convert to a hydrogen car economy?' The answer, we felt, was 'no,'" Chu said in a briefing, according to Energy & Environment Daily.

Fuel cells have been touted by politicians and people from the industry for many years. The major auto companies have hydrogen fuel cell development programs and lease a limited number of cars to people near the few hydrogen filling stations in the U.S.

But there are many technical challenges to making fuel cell vehicles broadly used, including compact storage, the distribution infrastructure, and the longevity of fuel cells.

The DOE will continue to fund research for stationary fuel cell applications, such as backup power on the power grid or at commercial facilities. Hydrogen can be captured from natural gas or other sources. A fuel cell makes electricity, generating only water vapor as a byproduct--what's considered zero emissions.

The National Hydrogen Association criticized the DOE funding decision, saying that there should be a range of different vehicle technologies.

Another funding area expected to be cut is the $200 million spent on deep-water oil and gas research, which Chu said that industry could fund on its own.

Chu also said that the DOE will seek to create eight "innovation hubs," which would be small research areas designed to attract more scientists into energy, according to a report in The New York Times.

Other proposed areas of investments are: electricity transmission infrastructure, plug-in electric and hybrid vehicles, nuclear energy, and so-called clean coal technologies to make coal power generation less polluting.

[myles taylor]

Fuel cell energy storage just isn't very good. There are multiple problems with it and not a lot of solutions. It's really just transfering the problem and that won't work. The money needs to be in wind, solar, and geothermal energy, coupled with better batteries and power grids, are the way to go.

[sparrowhyperion]

It's just these kind of close minded pinheads that are the reason we are still stuck with petro chemical fueled cars and trucks. I wonder how much the oil conglomerates paid them off.... Someone needs to fire these morons.

[mattie121]

No, this is a smart move. First off, federal funds are still going to stationary fuel cell dev. Second, if one were to make all cars fuel cell based, it would take more than the worlds current production of platinum to do it. Third is that for portable systems, one has to either pressurize or liquify the hydrogen. This takes a very large percentage of the energy content of the hydrogen itself to do. Fourth, there is lots and lots and lots of non-governmental research in this sector, so the feds putting the money elsewhere isn't going to stop progress.

What this does recognize is that if fuel cells are to be a real solution, it's not a short term answer. While you accuse those that make these decisions of being "close minded pinheads" I'd say that this can be better charecterized as knowledgeble people making rational decisions in the face of limited resources.

[metal321]

I think you are completely wrong about this issue having to do with platinum. Research into an iron alternative sounds very promising. These people are total morons. This Chou guy is a Class A moron. God save us from Democrats who are trying to save the world.

[bimmin]

its many years away from being practical when you wont do the research

[kcotham]

Think where we would be if they had kept research up in earnest during the oil crisis in the 1970s. Skimping on research only delays the implementation of new technology. Another good case is battery technology. Electric vehicles have been around for 100 years, but battery technology is still in its infancy. If oil prices had not plummeted after the oil crisis of the 70s, research would have been swung into full throttle for the past 30 years, essentially putting us 30 years ahead of where we are now.

Oil will not remain at today's prices. It's amazing how short these people's memories are. Prices are very volatile. It took a very short time for gasoline to jump 250% in price. We need to be exploring ALL possible alternatives, no matter how long it may be before they are made main stream.

Politicians are not the sort of people that need to be holding the purse strings, but scientists and people with vision.

[consumer451]

Please note the partial idiocy of this decision. Why are we allowing the Japanese to get a head again? Why? Below is the URL of a Reuters story about a car going into production in Japan that RUNS ON WATER. It's an EXISTING TECHNOLOGY. Fuel cells that convert sea and fresh water to energy have been available for years. I guess that it is simply too disruptive for even Mr. Change to pull off.

The reason I say partial idiocy is because since it is an existing technology it doesn't need research it needs production. Oh look! Over there Mr. Change! You have nearly direct control over a couple car companies. Imagine the impact. The cost of shipping a tomato, car, whatever, would drop considerably. Globalization would become much greener. Global productivity would increase. You could afford to drive your car across country. I understand that there is considerable resistance from our buddies in the oil biz, but this is the time to act for our kids environment, our personal wealth, and especially our national security.

http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=84561

[mattie121]

You've got to be kidding. Start with water, break it into hydrogen and oxygen, burn the hydrogen to get.... WATER! Even with a perfect system, this would be a no net energy gain system. What's really shocking isn't that there are people who will think that re-directing funds to technologies that have better bang for the buck think it's a bad decision, but that our education system is so poor that most people don't know pure BS when they see it!

Really, it's a sad day when perpetual motion machines get the airtime of national news syndicates and rope in people to believe that there is something there.

[tspine]

Te reason they aren't funding this is that it is not REAL. Water has no energy content. Sure, you can use a bunch of energy to electrolyze it, then use the H2 and O2 in a fuel cell, but the efficiency of that is not good.

The reuters link just shows that Japan has investment scammers just like the rest of the world.

Obama did a great thing when he appointed a physicist to the DOE. In times of crisis the DOE needs to be headed by someone with an understanding of the problems and a good BS detector.

[ledhead1962]

What kind buffoonery is this? Circular and specious at best - there are problems with a new technology so we are going to stop research!?! Isn't that the reason for research - to seek for answers to problems? How absolutely foolish and exasperating. This sounds like something that should have come out of Bush's fools not Obama's.

[carrot192]

It just goes to show, not all fools were iin Bush's camp. Ride on oil goons.

[mattie121]

Really if you want to read about some of the issues that face the technology, one could do a lot worse than to read the report on end use energy efficiencies on the transportation sector written by the American Physical Society.

http://www.aps.org/energyefficiencyreport/index.cfm

It wasn't done by a bunch of nut-jobs, but smart people who really know the science and technology behind decisions like this.

For all the naysayers who say that directing resources elsewhere is stupid, how do you know? What is the scientific and technical basis for your opinion? Surely it's got to be deeper than the opinions expressed above....

[willwilson]

A very nice link, though fuel cell discussion is quite deeply buried. Sounds like Chu made the right decision.
Will Wilson

[Econogics]

Finally!

Darryl McMahon
Author, The Emperor's New Hydrogen Economy

[green41day]

This could be the single worst decision of the Obama adm. Instead of building a bridge to future vehicle technology as the president claims to be the foundation of his long term plans, this decision will only widen the gap.

Bad move Chu

http://www.mygreenscene.com

[173xb7]

This is beyond short-sighted, something that one would not expect from a man of Dr. Chu's credentials. In the future we will be paying for the success of China, Japan, or Iceland for THEIR success in perfecting this technology. America will be in the far distance and paying , instead of being paid!

[mattie121]

A little more perspective..... For automotive fuel cells to become viable, there needs to be a lot of work done in three areas:

1) Catalytic systems. This area of research still recieves funding via other channels.
2) Membrane science. This area of research still receives funding via other channels.
3) Hydrogen technology. This area is actually well known, but there is quite a huge cost barrier in creating hydrogen (cheapest is cracking methane, and that creates CO2 that needs to be dealt with... But there goes the "no carbon footprint". It can be combined with carbon sequestration, but that adds to costs as well. Electralytic dissociation is very expensive as well. cracking water via superheated steam would work, but really needs nuclear power to work in scales required for a significant degree of penetration.) And there is a very large cost in transporting hydrogen. And there is a very large cost in compressing and or liquifying it as well.

All three of these issues are still getting attention via other avenues. But without progress on these three issues (and progress on all three is required for there to be any chance of viable light vehicle fuel cell applications) putting money into this area is really just a very low probability of success effort with very large and real opportunity costs. The article should do a much better job of pointing out that while the direct funds for light vehicle fuel cells have been zero'ed out of the fed R&D budget, that research is still going on in other areas that are required for future fuel cell success.

To all those that are saying this is really, really stupid, how does one go about allocating funds from a cash starved government? Scientific investment was pretty much starved under Bush, and while growing once again, is still too little to do all that we want to do. What should we cut in order to do this?

[Urban Terrorist]

Fuel Cells are not "ZERO EMISSION" devices. I asked a the CEO of a Fuel Cell Manufacturer if the water emitted was potable (drinkable) and his answer was "NO". He could not tell me what contaminants were in the water (he was not a scientist).

While Fuel Cells may have some uses, the US Government and the Industry have been less than honest about their drawbacks.

[mattie121]

This one isn't hard. The oxygen for the fuel cell comes from the atmosphere. Depending on the exact gas path through the cell, contaminants in the air must have a way out of the system. But to be fair to the fuel cell technology, they aren't the source of the contamination. If one used pure oxygen and pure hydrogen, what would come out is pure water.

The fact that condensed water from fuel cell vehicle exhaust isn't characterized as potable doesn't mean the fuel cells create toxic exhaust.

[pptvark]

At first, I thought "Why would we stop this?" Then I was listening to NPR and heard the fuel cell lobby crying--and realized some of the biggest companies were involved and I stepped back and did some research, and thoughtful analysis. I am no expert, but it seems like fuel cells need a hydrogen source, (water, hydrocarbons) to be made into electricity to move motors. It just seems to me like an extra step paid to a middleman willing to take our dough (a new energy dealer, think--oil). The possibility of skipping the middleman by generating solar energy and storing it to a battery or ultracapacitor storage would avoid having to purchase that commodity from the new hydrogen syndicate. It just seems to make more sense to make batteries cheaper/ faster charging/ lighter and solar/wind cheaper to implement than waste more money on a technology that will have to be refueled by something we can't put on the roof of our home. Now, if there is a way to make a personal hydrogen condenser/producer or something, then I take everything back. Still seems that the hydrogen lobby sees People as suckers who will continue to fund projects so that those companies can take money out of our pockets in the future. The road to the future for me is: Solar/Wind personal energy production to advanced ultracaps in electrical cars, with recharging stations to fill you up along our highways if we need to take a trip outside of the 250 mile range that will be available with new battery tech. Thanks, Patrick

[therealdude]

There are a couple points that you people should note here. First, does anyone remember the billions awarded to the auto makers to improve fuel ecconomy last winter just before the Bail-outs? The work on hydrogen is still being supported by this money if it has any real potential. Second, surf on over to Hydrogen Hoaks by Robert Zurbin. This will provide some real shocking insite. In my oppinion the future will need some form of combustable fuel to replace petroleum and that may very well be hydrogen in that capacity. However Fuel Cells are not practical and never will be for the masses. Therefore is is simply not right to squander the masses resources on them..