« Companies Partner to Advance Metal-Bath Gasification Technique for Coal-to-Liquids | Main | Brazil to Achieve Self-Sufficiency in Oil—At Least for Awhile »
Bush’s Earth Day Message: Hydrogen, Plug-Ins and Ethanol
22 April 2006
President Bush chose the California Fuel Cell partnership as the venue for an Earth Day address on advanced transportation, during which he emphasized hydrogen as the future solution, but referenced hybrids, plug-in hybrids and ethanol as being important transition technologies in the short-term.
Before touching on the solutions for the future, the President talked about rising oil and gasoline prices, and some sporadic shortages. The President attributed the rising price of gasoline to three factors: rising demand with constrained supply, lack of refinery capacity in the US, and the switch from MTBE to ethanol as an oxygenating additive.
We’re going to have a tough summer because people are beginning to drive now during tight supply. The Energy Department predicts gas prices are going to go up...And all these factors remind us that we got to do something about our dependence on oil. That’s what the lessons at the pump say today.
The solution to oil dependency and high prices, according to the President, is “to promote hydrogen and hybrid vehicles and ethanol.”
I strongly believe hydrogen is the fuel of the future. That’s what we’re talking about. Hydrogen is clean; hydrogen is domestically produced; and hydrogen is the wave of the future. And the people here at the California Fuel Cell Partnership understand that.
One of the reasons I have come here is because I want the American people to understand that their tax dollars are yielding important results, that we are making progress, that the idea of having a hydrogen-powered automobile is not a foolish dream. It’s a reality that is going to come to be.
With hydrogen as the long-term solution, the President made a case for the immediate use of hybrids—and especially plug-in hybrids—as “a good way to reduce our oil consumption right now.”
We can affect our dependence on oil by encouraging people to purchase hybrid vehicles. And that’s why the federal government passed a law that says you get a tax credit of up to $3,400 for a hybrid vehicle purchase.
What’s really going to be interesting, however, is what’s called plug-in hybrid vehicles. And we’re spending $31 million annually to speed up research into these battery technologies.
...We’re trying to develop a battery that will power your vehicle, where you plug it in at night and you drive the first 40 miles on electricity alone...A lot of people don’t drive more than 40 miles a day in big cities. So all of a sudden...we’re developing a technology that says you’ll drive by the use of electricity, and you won’t use gasoline at all.
And one way to affect consumption is to speed up the development of these plug-in hybrids, and we’re doing just that at the federal level. It’s a promising technology that will help people change the way they drive. It’ll be a transition to the hydrogen fuel cell batteries.
The President also described himself as “a big proponent of ethanol”—pervasive E10 blends in any vehicle with a transition to E85 flex-fuel vehicles. And he once again noted the importance of cellulosic ethanol, and the production of the fuel from “wood chips and stalks and switchgrass.”
Catherine [Dunwoody, the executive director of the California Fuel Cell Partnership] reminded me, however, in my discussions with her that switchgrass can also be used to manufacture hydrogen. She wanted me to make sure that in my description of what is possible in the United States that we make sure one technology does not pirate money for another technology.
And it’s not going to happen. What’s going to happen is we’ll have research on all fronts to achieve a grand national objective. And there’s no doubt in my mind we’ll be able to achieve this objective.
Resources:
Transcript of speech to California Fuel Cell Partnership
April 22, 2006 in Ethanol, Fuel Cells, Hybrids, Hydrogen, Plug-ins, Policy | Permalink | Comments (54) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/4723795
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Bush’s Earth Day Message: Hydrogen, Plug-Ins and Ethanol:
Comments
tony,
plug-in hybrids are a good step towards full battery electrics, so, if the pres is supporting plug-ins, he is supporting your Ultimate Battery
of course, batteries and hydrogen are not energy solutions, they are just energy carriers. so, the elephant in the room is where the energy will come from in the first place?
all of the new 100+ MW power plants planned in the US are coal powered. not advanced coal, traditional coal.
Posted by: shaun | Apr 22, 2006 10:23:40 PM
I just wish Bush would do more than just talk about it! Why doesn't he raise fuel economy standards appropriately? Why is he fighting California on this issue? It seems to me its all PR...
Posted by: marcus | Apr 22, 2006 11:19:19 PM
Shaun, you are correct in that I did not talk about where the energy was going to come from. I wanted to focus on the electric solution to personal transportion. From energy source to car, the EV is the most efficient solution.
The problem with the President, and congress is that they have NO CONCRETE PLAN for fossil fuel elimination.
Hell, the Nordic countries already have plans in place to do it, by what, 2020?
For the 300billion the US spent on the war so far, the US could have bought 2 and 1/2 times the electric output of the world's largest Hydroelectric dam(Itaipu)! in solar panels!! (at $9/w)
We need solar panels on homes in the west and south, wind turbines in the nothern midwest, bio fuel production for jets and big trucks in the midwest and south.
Country! Let's get with the program! (for fossil fuel elimination)
Posted by: Tonychilling | Apr 23, 2006 12:13:00 AM
As it was rightfully noticed, hydrogen is not energy source, but rather energy carrier. And extremely lousy one. It has 6 times less energy per volume even then natural gas, along with other numerous disadvantages. Before solution will be found to refuel car with liquid based hydrogen carrier, (such as methanol), fuel cell car is a pipe dream. Situation with electric car is even worth. It will never work for very simple reason: it is physically impossible in two minutes to pump into car battery amount of electricity your home spend in a week. Wires and connector will melt and battery will explode. No matter what fairy tales are told about “fast charge”, for EV-sized battery it is not possible.
Meanwhile hybrid cars offer real and very substantial advantages. Aside from substantial fuel savings, hybrid drivetrain could be tuned for high performance and comfort. Equipped with CV transmission, gasoline direct injection engine working on optimized Atkinson cycle, and in near future running lean mixture with NOx adsorber cat (technology on a brink of commercialization), family sedan with good performance, near zero toxic emissions, and close to 100 mpg fuel efficiency is clearly on the horizon. As a bonus, such hybrid is inherently suitable to plug-in option allowing recharge at night and driving first 40 miles on electricity without performance sacrifice. Fuel also could be quite flexible – propane, mix of ethanol/methanol/gasoline, natural gas, etc.
I do not believe that such global problem as personal transportation could be solved by one ultimate technology. So lets keep all options open.
Posted by: Andrey | Apr 23, 2006 2:20:08 AM
tonychillings's "crazy christian" comment:Isn't it funny how people can be bigioted as they want to about christians, but is some dares to mention a certain other religion, which is driving the Irian Presindent to seek nuclear amaragedon, as well as create a army of suicide bombers, they get chastised as being a racist, interesting.
And Bush makes a speech promoting all the stuff this sites promotes and you just criticize and complain. That's great.
Posted by: Paul Hilburger | Apr 23, 2006 4:17:48 AM
You hit it right on the nail, Paul. It's rather interesting how leftists have a "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't" policy. If Bush pursues alternative energy, he is wasting time or lying. If he doesn't, he's in Big Oil's pocket.
Stepping off the soapbox, Dubya has the right idea. We are going to have to do something for the inevitable day the oil runs out and at least his proposals are an idea as opposed to those who simply whine and offer no solution.
Posted by: Mark R. W. Jr | Apr 23, 2006 4:40:40 AM
Are you aware that energy policy has to go through the gauntlet of congress?Your assaults should be upon your representatives.Assault them with them with educational materials.Barrage them with your zeal for green and independent fuel supplies.There is legislation pending{vehicle and fuel choices for American security act.}that is supported by republicans and dems.You can continue barking at the president or you can become part of the process at the local representative{your congressmen and senators.}level.I suggest the latter.
Posted by: gerald earl | Apr 23, 2006 5:30:18 AM
Good point gerald. I have been doing just that. Since they have no idea what I'm talking about, I get back a generic form letter that profusely thanks me for writing but doesn't say why.
One of our solutions for the situation we find ourselves in would be, to not to return a single incumbent next November, but we all know that won't happen.
Another solution would be a constitutional amendment, limiting every politician to one term in office.
That's most likely to happen when Pigs learn to fly.
Posted by: Lucas | Apr 23, 2006 6:12:51 AM
$31 million annually for the research of battery technology. I certainly wouldn't call that aggressive research.
Posted by: Rich | Apr 23, 2006 7:02:16 AM
Mr. Bush, here is a simple, short term fix:
Low range, plug-in (lithium ion or even NiMH) flex fuel hybrids....Period
I would fill up with gas twice a year if this were available.
Posted by: cs1992 | Apr 23, 2006 7:06:10 AM
Bush mentions the $3400 hybrid tax credit. But he fails to mention that this is for only 60,000 vehicles per year per model. Also, he fails to mention that the biggest tax credit for a vehicle is for small business owners and buying a huge SUV.
Someone previously mentioned in another topic, if we double the fuel economy of a toyota prius it certainly helps reduce fuel usage. But if you double the fuel economy of an SUV or convince that person who drives an SUV to drive something the gets double the mileage, you'll reduce fuel usage much more.
Posted by: Dave | Apr 23, 2006 7:48:15 AM
Research on hydrogen is fine, but let's quit talking about how it has any relevance to to today's gas prices or much relevance at all for at least twenty years. Bush likes to talk about the future because he doesn't want to do anything about the present. The fact is that vehicles were getting better mileage twenty years ago than they are now. We didn't hear a peep about raising CAFE standards or doing anything else to encourage conservation now.
Notice that we have a bunch of poorly funded programs and that we continue to piss away our heritage and our future on war. Bush has no plans to withdraw troops or do something about our bloated defense budget. Most of the job growth during the Bush years have been the result of defense spending. We only have so much intellectual capital and piss it away on this stupid war and not energy alternatives.
Bush cut the budget for increasing energy efficiency within the government. Good move!
Notice that Bush, and no politician for that matter, will come out and actually set a goal for reduction of oil use and overall energy use. Once you set a goal, then you need to come up with a specific strategy to reach that goal. All this general talk about ethanol and hydrogen will get us nowhere.
In the spirit of nonpartisanship, I will say that the Democrats are not much better in this area. They, like Bush, will only talk about solutions that are seemingly pain free. They rail against high prices, when that's what we need unless we're willing to impose some sort of market based rationing system. Americans won't stand for higher gas taxes or rationing, so they are just going to have to live with high prices wherein most of our dollars go overseas.
Oil will be rationed, one way or another. It will be rationed through the market system, the tax system, or some other system.
Posted by: t | Apr 23, 2006 7:48:36 AM
Hydrogen is far from pie in the sky. They have made a ton of progress on every area.
Its now only a matter of time.
As for batteries... Bush already talked up batteries last time and the military and various other gov groups have many projects on batteries.
As for the war in iraq... If your clueless enough to think the war was realy about iraq then ya it was a big waste of money to you. If you know why they did it then you understand exactly why it was garanteed to cost alot and worth every penny.
A simple question.. why cant we find bin laden.. answer we already have many times hes worth far more to america alive then dead. for now.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 23, 2006 7:56:01 AM
If we need E10 and E85, WHY DON'T WE MANDATE IT?
Posted by: Icelander | Apr 23, 2006 8:05:40 AM
Problem here seems to be not the current president but how
political parties are sponcored in USA. Both Dems and Reps are fed from the same corporate pocket and that is where music is being ordered. Somehow oil pockets are most deep
once, so I think, this is your answer why Americans are still encouraged to drive SUVs. Somehow I find that both political parties are too much dependant on corporate money flow. While I would agree that corporations are the ones that provide jobs and goods
and money to budget (and lobbies) but still I think there should be sound system that in case of conflict of interests between corporations and american security
should side polititians on later. Its a very tricky to implement as many polititians are shareholders of exactly those corporations (oil ones comes to mind of course due to huge market capitalization) whose interests are not in favour of american security as I view it. Mr. Bush is just a soundspeaker of that system
so there is no surprise for me his talk has no serious actions (accept riding the bike on Earth Day).
Posted by: Alex | Apr 23, 2006 8:45:16 AM
So Bush burned 116 tons of JetA and what do we get, a lot of hot air and a country deeper in debt.
Posted by: tom deplume | Apr 23, 2006 10:09:48 AM
The fuel choice bill addresses the suv tax break.It switches the tax incentives to hybrids and alternative fuels vehicles.Even if it seems that your rep ignores your letters,their staff makes note of them especially if they come in large numbers.Ranters and name callers please look up this legislation.You may find that your concerns are finally being heard.
Posted by: gerald earl | Apr 23, 2006 10:34:39 AM
Stop criticizing my hero!!
Posted by: In Love with Bush | Apr 23, 2006 10:37:20 AM
President Bush seems to be taking steps in the right direction. Being pro-electricity, I think that much more than $31 million (i.e. billions instead of millions) are required to enhance and accellerate the production of low cost cleaner electricity and distribution systems, compact lower cost storage devices and control sub-systems, high rate charging stations and various size high efficiency on-board motors/generators/controllers.
Private industry may eventually do it all without much governmental help but the transition would take much longer. Government incentives have been around for a long time and transistion from oil to alternative cleaner energy sources will certainly need a lot more. The objective fully deserves massive investments.
Improving the current ICE technology may be one of the quickest way to reduce oil consumption. However, in the longer term, PHEVs and EVs will compete favorably and should replace ICE cars and light trucks by 2020+.
Are hydrogen fuel cell powered cars really required? Will the on-board fuel cell become an option to extend the range of PHEVs or to replace the ICE/genset?
Posted by: Harvey D. | Apr 23, 2006 10:43:18 AM
If Bush wants a way to promote ethanol and reduce fuel costs, why doesn't he just drop the $.54 a gallon tariff on ethanol? We could be importing from Brazil and other tropical nations for a lot less than the $3.00 a gallon for gasoline that we are paying now.
Its not energy independence but it is a lot better then sending our money to Saudi Arabia.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 23, 2006 10:47:44 AM
The only big threat to United States sercurity is OIL!
Look what happened when oil production went down during Katrina?
Congress and the Administration need to get a plan in place to stop fossil fuels from having a strangle hold on us.
Posted by: tonychilling | Apr 23, 2006 10:52:11 AM
The tariff on ethanol would probably be traced to a corn state senator not adolph Bushler.The president could be naive could be wrong but he is not the epitomy of evil represented in the marxist dissertation previous to this post.The game is played between the two parties.They tend to forget to be agents for the good of the nation and instead war agaist each other.We need to play our role in prodding them to come to necessary compromise.neither side has grasped the keys to eternal enlightenment.We can appeal to the enlightened self interest of reps.Clean coal tech appeals to coal states.Ethanol and biodiesel to farm states.Photovoltaic and other high tech answers to high tech states.Lets encourage a basket of American technologies to produce Americas energy giving Americans jobs.Energy security,cleaner energy,and economic opportunity is knocking.We can answer the door together or trample each other to death in our scramble there.
Posted by: gerald earl | Apr 23, 2006 12:12:15 PM
The Honda energy station is going to be availlable in my area later this year.It is a product of hydrogen fuel cell research.It will provide heat and approximately fifty percent of electricity by using waste heat from fuel cell.It reforms hydrogen from the evil fossil fuel natural gas.It is however approximately fifty percent more efficient than current tech being used.It is clean er cheap er but not perfect.In five to ten years I may be able to trade it in for a super efficient solar roof and a turby wind turbine.Then energy would be clean and cheap.Is it worth an intermediate step or two to get to such a desireable end.I think so.
Posted by: gerald earl | Apr 23, 2006 12:32:47 PM
I am material engineer and I work with MIT scientists on new battery technology. All of you must know that fuell cell tech is not the answer and that it will take many [decades] years to even see any serious and commercially viable FC use. And to the contrary to some posters here that mention the lack of relaibility of pure [battery powered] EVs or even Hibryd EV/EV, you must know that very soon a 60 second+/- battery with a 300% increase in power storage capacity will be available to be fitted on highway-legal pure EVs.
We know of a new EV company that is already in the final stages of testing of beautiful {I was on a engineering team that helped them with battery technology] new Evs that will be intorduced to the US market in a year or so.
Bush and his cohorts are not the answer for the future.
Dems might do the exact same [wrong] thing if we Americans don't act upon it and make them change the view and the policy of oil dependency.
Why is not the Green party taking more votes and a stronger share in the political arena if they are the party of environment and future???
The ever biggest problem with this country is that there are ONLY two political parties that pretty much act the same way and that will cripple the US one way or the other.
Fred!!
PhD
Posted by: Fred | Apr 23, 2006 1:07:58 PM
> The tariff on ethanol would probably be traced to
> corn state senator not adolph Bushler.
True, although a certain all-hat-no-cattle fake cowboy who didn't manage a veto even when his approval ratings were sky-high may also have something to do with it.
Posted by: dimitris | Apr 23, 2006 1:26:19 PM
Is anybody on this site capable to putting together their own car/vehicle cheaply, or perhaps not so cheaply? Ridge Runner makes a really awesome off-road vehicle. Perhaps one could buy their chassis, put on the bare minimum to make it road legal, and install a motor, controller and lots of good batteries. You could even quick swap wheels/tires to make a good on-road/off-road vehicle. (We can worry about refining it when Honda approaches us to build their own version.)
Man, just putting something like the 1.2 liter TDI from the Volkswagen Lupo into this vehicle would give it good performance and excellent mileage, and that's not even electric! The vehicle now only weighs roughly 950 pounds complete. I would love to try a project like this. I'm a graduate student and have no funds. That's my excuse, lame as it may sound! :) But is anyone else here attempting something like this? Share the wealth! (The Ridge Runner is just a suggestion, the best I can think of unless someone else can work with composit materials or knows of something better. A three wheeler would be good too.)
http://www.ridgerunner.biz/
It would take a good amount of planning and work, but it's not insurmountable if you have some knowledgeable and skilled tech people to help you out. With the tenor of our times, your electric vehicle/hybrid would be on the front cover of tons of magazines/papers, and people would clamour for more to be made. Perhaps you'd be a hero of sorts.
Best of all, it would be a ton of fun building and driving it, you'd actually be doing something instead of just complaining about it, you'd be making a huge statement, you'd save ton on fuel once it's finished, and perhaps the interest would be so great you could make more and sell them for profit. ??? Just please let me know if you start a project so I can check it out! We all want change: what better way than grassroots? Even with the best intentioned politicians, the system moves very slowly.
Now, do I sound like a "crazy Christian" opposed to "sound science?"
Posted by: John W. | Apr 23, 2006 1:39:44 PM
Let's celebrate Earth Day by saying thanks to this site for bringing us the good news of the technology that is coming. My local paper had only gloom and doom. I'm convinced that the creative talents and ingenuity of the American people are going to be the way we make out energy future. President Bush is not the problem or the solution. The people are both. If every driver in the US decided to forego one trip each month the reduction in demand would be very evident. Or if we all slowed our speed by 5 mph again, in the aggregate, the savings would be very noticeable and helpful. Let's take responsibility for the energy future we want.
Posted by: Ed | Apr 23, 2006 1:50:03 PM
I see a long stream of technical riposting on this forum on whether H2 and Ethanol are feasible or better than this or that. What increasingly strikes me is how some of this discussion, while technically astute seems to be missing the real issue here:
Bush says a lot of things, some true, some naive, many out and out lies as he demonstrated time and time again. He is now making the right noises about needing to address the problem, but the issue as always... Will he put his money where his mouth is? Or will he just cave into the very small group of wealthy private interests in the extractive industries to which he is beholden and try for the millionth time to crach open ANWR for the oil industry.
Posted by: Lance Funston | Apr 23, 2006 1:50:09 PM
Gerald Earl... Ihope you are right about battery technology, but I'd like to see some proof!
Posted by: cs1992 | Apr 23, 2006 1:52:25 PM
cs1992,
Check out A123Systems new batteries being used by DeWalt in their new heavy duty 36V chordless power tools.
http://www.a123systems.com/html/home.html
They are just one example. There are a number of other competitors in this race as well.
Posted by: PeterW | Apr 23, 2006 2:11:44 PM
Fred, thank you for giving us hope that other than 25mph EV is on the way.
Since it is from a new EV company, looks like it will be in the 100k to 200k price range. but that's okay as long, as it can blow the doors off a Ferrari, like the Tzero, then it may have a chance in the marketplace.
Posted by: tonychilling | Apr 23, 2006 2:58:04 PM
Hi... it's Fred again!
Actually, I forgot to mention/clear that the 60 seconds refers to re-charging time. Toshiba already has it and I personally tested it and it is quite amazing.
It means that 80%+ of the entire EV battery bank can be re-charged faster than pumping oil/ethanol/FC in the car.
There's also a new exciting EV/Ev-Hybrid concept. Batteries + Ultracapacitors to give the most of fast raw power/acceleration and long range capacity & speed.
Bush says that $31Mil are spent yearly on new battery research, and yet billions are spent every year on zero efficient technology and wasteful White House schemes.
Many world top scientists and engineers think/agree that having vehicles running on oil/gas {ICE} is the greatest waste and that is especially true for drivers who use their vehicles for short trips where the average speed is 25/45 mph and where a pure EV would do the job well; actually better!
But when the Saudis own/invested a trillion dollar in US businesses and are behind most of the oil and car biz [even though you can't see them due to their phony/front investment corps.], you tell me if making the US/Canada a pure EV, [or non-gasoline], society can be that easy! It could be however, if many US citizens and residents would stand-up and demand that Detroit and Big Oil be investigated and brought to justice [sort of like the cigarette scandals] for creating a society addicted to oil and to big gas guzzlers.
Also, I know for a fact that the new EV car company I mentioned on my previous post, has no tie with Detroit and that their vehicles will have a wide range of selections and prices. One of their management heads told us that they plan to sell their entry-level {ala Scion} EVs for about $20K or so.
If that [price] becomes a reality and their vehicles are in effect as good as any other vehicle on the roads at present [and future] time, then I would like to see a serious effort from the American public and corporations to adopt this old, and yet so refreshing, electric engine propulsion system.
If I was a governemnt official I would push hard to pass a law where all US businesses, [small and big], goverment fleets, utilities and people who own multiple cars must buy also pure EV/NEV vehicles [and I'm not talking golf-carts] in order to help the reduction of green-house gasses [global warming] and help to curb smog/noise pollution in our cities [sorry Harley Davidson but you bikes stink]. If there are enough people/drivers out there [US and the rest of the world] who do not care if their cars run with an inefficient gas based motor [ICE], but instead want to make a difference using/driving a super efficient and cost-saving EV, then I think we have something!!!
I am not allowed to mention the name of this new EV start-up, but I will ask for it and if they say yes, I will post it here for all to know.
Fred Sands, PhD.
PS: For that person who says Dubya is his hero, I suggest a quick and no-pain lobotomy, and/or relocation to a Texas ranch where clearing brushes it's all the brain is required to think about. Or even better, relocate to Iraq and enjoy the [Bush/Cheny] show of blood and daily carnage in the name of "freedom" and "democracy"!!!
Posted by: Fred | Apr 23, 2006 4:34:38 PM
See these links:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/04/toshibarsquos_f.html
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_03/pr2901.htm
Fred Sands, PhD.
Posted by: Fred | Apr 23, 2006 4:45:46 PM
Well, Fred though with all my heart I would love to believe to all you say about new car company and EVs in the making, I personally feel very skeptical that it will
see the light, unless some powerfull people are behind it.
Besides all this Toshiba stuff we heard last year: where is that battery? can we buy it? Its 1 year since they announced the one.
I do totally agree though on part that Bush & Co. is a bunch of criminals cause they definitely have much more overview of what is going on. My wild guess there is A LOT of Saudis money on the Wall Street which play their interest not ours.
The whole american society is based on cheap oil, cities with citizens traveling to work 100km one way, I personally know quite a few of such ones. I guess they will change their mind pretty quickly once gasoline price turns parabolic.
Unfortunatelly I think we are in quite a desperate situation from which the only way out is through tremendous crisis (recent gold movement over 600 $ per ounce might be a qlue).
Besides I feel the War in Iraq is fought not over oil directly but for Saddam Hussein trying to trade oil for
other currency then dollar (same with Iran btw) if that really happened, then many central Banks in many countries would start dumping dollars that might cause its crash, so Bush teached a lesson. My guess Iran is next. 75 $/barrel is very much in favour of that anyways.
So Fred I do hope that you are right and we will see a new EV in a year, though I wouldn't bet my hard earned on that.
Posted by: Alex | Apr 23, 2006 6:39:12 PM
Let me explain reality to you.
The reality is biofuels have one fatal flaw. They have to be transported from where its cheap to make it to where your gona use it. And no matter what we do most likely that involves a long trip.
The production of bio fuels also requires fertilizers and pesticides and blah blah blah.
This is a fatal flaw because low cost low quality fuels that transports use are endangered.
In simple terms the cost of getting the fuel to us may be more then the cost of making it within 20 years.
H2 can be made anywhere can be piped and can be made from a whole slew of sources that soon will be worthless as fuels themsevles because again they will cost far more to ship then they are worth as fuels.
Yes some of us will be able to use biofuels as the cheap source is very close to us. But alot of us will have to make do with whatever we can get to us cheapest. In alot of cases amazing and horrifying as it may be h2 will be the cheapest fuel people can get.
The world as we know it is based on fuels that cost less then water does. Think on that and what will change when that fuel goes away and is replaced by something far more expensive. Im talking bunker fuel and the various low grade oil fuels cargo ships and tankers use as well as trains and and and and and...
Even the fuel a passenger jet uses today is vastly cheaper then what they will be forced to use 10-15 years from now.
It isnt just Bush who deals with hydrogen alot of countries woke up to the fact our world as we know it is at an end and everything is going to change.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 23, 2006 6:46:15 PM
From EV World:
Why Not Switch to Electric Cars?
Source: Baltimore Chronicle
[Sep 02, 2005]
SYNOPSIS: There is more than enough off-peak electricity available to easily allow the transfer of all of our driving miles from gasoline- to electric-powered vehicles.
We hear a lot of empty talk about attaining energy independence and about reducing our need for overseas imported oil. But absolutely nothing is being done by our oily political leaders.
Yet there is something that people have found they can do, and which bears out the axiom "when the people lead, the leaders follow." There is a small but surprisingly unyielding number of people who adopt the "PV-EV" way of living, using solar Photo-Voltaic ("PV") panels to generate more electricity than they can use and driving a plug-in electric vehicle ("EV") to soak up some of that power. The only impediments to expansion of this small number are the loss of our solar panel industry to foreign companies and the failure of our leaders to make plug-in electric cars available for sale on the open market.
There is more than enough off-peak electricity available to easily allow the transfer of all of our driving miles from gasoline- to electric-powered vehicles. That's an exciting prospect, but for now let's just see how we can eliminate overseas oil imports.
Here's the math in California, which has the figures readily available, and which consumes 12% of the country's gasoline: California uses 280 million gallons of gasoline per week. At the fleet average of 20 miles per gallon ("mpg"), that's 5,600 million miles per week. On an average day, Californians drive 800 million miles burning fuel derived from petroleum.
The RAV4-EV-not even the most efficient EV-gets four miles for each kilowatt-hour ("kWh") of energy it holds. Dividing 800 million daily miles by four miles per kWh means we would need 200 million kWh to convert all miles driven in gasoline-fueled cars to miles powered by electric RAV4-EVs or other, even more efficient electric vehicles.
In California, our installed capacity is 60,000 megawatts and off-peak unused capacity is about 30,000 megawatts for 18 hours (integrating under the curve on the state website, caiso.com), or about 540,000 megawatt-hours. That's 540 million kWh of unused electric capacity per day.
That's more than the 200 million kWh per day it would take to convert ALL oil-fueled miles to electric-powered miles, by a substantial margin, and without building one new power plant.
Even replacing just a fraction, merely 40%, of our oil with off-peak electric power would eliminate the need for all overseas oil imports. Using only Canadian, Mexican, and Alaskan oil, we would be self-sufficient, no longer dependent on the Middle East, Nigeria, Indonesia nor even Columbia and Venezuela. We'd only need 80 million kWh per day to convert 40% of our oil used to electric power, enough to attain energy independence.
That can easily be done without building a single new power plant, even in the high-demand peak summertime period. Running at constant capacity is also more efficient, since big generators wear more quickly when ramped up and down every day. Using off-peak electric would actually improve production efficiencies. And as for pollution, our power plants are 97% cleaner than gasoline. It's a lot easier to control environmental impact of one power plant than one million tailpipes.
If we install rooftop solar power, it gets even easier to attain energy independence. Solar power, distributed throughout the city, provides a backup in case of grid failure, and becomes a helpful adjunct to the grid in meeting peak daytime demand.
Solar power decreases daytime peak usage, making the surplus even bigger. Even a small rooftop solar system can produce 25 kWh of electric per day, at the most critical time-peak summer daytime demand period.
Governor Schwarzenegger is planning to spend $20 billion on new out-of-state power plants and transmission lines. If that were spent instead here in California, it would provide incentives for homeowners to install rooftop solar power. At $10,000 per house, that money would enable 2 million houses to install solar panels, which would be an additional 50 million kWh per day. And the value would belong to the California homeowner instead of being spent on a coal plant.
This minimal use of solar alone would almost be enough to replace 40% of our oil usage. This is made possible by the fact that the EV is up to 10 times as efficient as a gasoline car, which enables so little electricity to replace so much gasoline and other oil-based fuels.
At 4 miles per kWh, the all-electric plug-in Toyota RAV4-EV travels about 140 miles on the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline (at 35 kWh per gallon). More aerodynamic EVs, such as the General Motors EV1, get 6 miles out of each kWh, or about 200 miles per gallon gas equivalent ("mpgge").
Compare the efficiency of an EV to a gas car over 100 miles. A Hummer, Suburban or Navigator, at 10 mpg, takes 10 gallons to go 100 miles. Our fleet average car gets 20 mpg, and requires 5 gallons to go 100 miles. Even a Prius, at 50 mpg, takes 2 gallons of gas to go 100 miles. The aerodynamic Honda Insight takes 1.6 gallons of gas to go 100 miles. But an EV goes 100 miles with no gasoline and no oil, on the energy equivalent of less than one gallon of gasoline. No smog checks, no exhaust, no tune-ups, no oil changes.
An EV is anywhere from twice to ten times more energy efficient than a gasoline car. But energy efficiency is only part of the advantage of EVs: the EV uses no gas at all, and can be sourced from a rooftop distributed solar photo-voltaic array.
This combination of "PV-EV"--a solar array providing seemingly unlimited power credits and an electric vehicle to use them--allows living essentially "oil- free." PV-EV practitioners sail past gas stations, and never worry about the cost of gasoline. When you drive free of cost and free of gasoline, buying gas seems like the rip-off that it really is, and paying the oil company seems like throwing money into the sewer.
We are proving this possible right now, and have been doing so for the past seven years. Our solar PV system produces more than enough kWh credits (we get a time-of-use benefit for charging off-peak), and we drive a lot--up to 40,000 miles per year on two cars, 20,000 miles for each RAV4-EV. Those miles are driven in kWh, meaning no oil was used for them (although some was used making the car), so instead of using 2,000 gallons of gasoline (producing 25 lbs. of carbon dioxide per gallon of gasoline) we used up 10,000 kWh to drive that distance, which was paid for by our peak production (and sometimes directly charged off the solar system). But even without the solar system, it only costs one cent a mile to charge up off-peak.
The real point here is that we need to move in this direction. We can't continue to rely on oil supplies from overseas dictators. The ancillary expenses are much too high--not to mention the human suffering and misery.
When will our leaders figure out that we don't need their oil and thus have no real reason to dominate the oil producing regions, no reason to subsidize protection of overseas oil supply lines, no reason to bomb Iraq. All it takes is the will to produce plug-in cars capable of driving 100 all-electric miles per day. Most of our driving is local: 80% of our miles are driven on round-trips less than 80 miles from home.
A serial plug-in hybrid that runs just like an EV at up to 80 miles per hour for up to 120 miles could be manufactured as easily and as reliably as the RAV4-EV. The serial hybrid has a small (40 hp) generator/engine that runs at constant speed to charge the battery on occasional long trips or if you forget to plug it in. We can do this: all it takes is the decision to allow people to join the "PV-EV" crowd, who vow to live essentially "oil-free."
Allowing more folks to drive all-electric cars lowers demand for gasoline, and should lower the price of gas for everyone else. So who, except the profit-bloated oil companies and their captive politicians, would oppose PV-EV?
We've got to do something; is there a better idea? Perhaps converting ALL cars to hybrids, increasing our fleet mileage to 40 mpg (let's say), would do the trick. But there are no hybrid mini-vans, and many hybrids from Ford and General Motors only get 25 mpg.
The attractive thing about driving all-electric vehicles is that we can eliminate the use of gasoline in our normal, car-oriented lifestyle without giving anything up. No one is going to abolish gas entirely; there will still be common tasks such as bringing supplies to the market which require gasoline-powered vehicles. PV-EV users are not judgmental about it; those who need to continue driving gas cars can do so.
Only a few were allowed to buy plug-in electric cars; but those lucky drivers who experienced the PV-EV lifestyle loved it, and fought hard to retain the EVs that made it possible. Yet powerful oil and auto companies, their trade associations, PR firms and captive politicians largely won and destroyed almost all plug-in electric cars. General Motors alone confiscated and crushed over 1200 gas-free cars. Oil and auto companies paid for campaigns to stop electric cars, and finally sued California to force an end to electric cars and destroy almost all of them.
Only Toyota allowed us to keep our EVs, honorably selling a plug-in electric vehicle. If there were more plug-in EVs on the market, more folks would be able to contemplate a move to the PV-EV way of living.
Only political leadership can force the oil and auto companies to allow plug-in electric cars, such as a serial plug-in hybrid, on the open market. We know the technology is viable because volunteer PV-EV engineers modified a Prius to enable it to plug in (struggling against the on-board computer, which seems designed to sabotage a bigger battery pack). But like all electric cars, the plug-in Prius runs better than a gasoline-powered car, and it gets up to 180 mpg. The true serial hybrid would get up to 500 mpg, and could allow drivers to generally avoid gasoline during the daily grind.
Posted by: Fred | Apr 23, 2006 7:20:28 PM
Dear Alex,
This is an email I received from Mr. Yamamoto at Toshiba Japan not too long ago:
********************************************************
"Dear Fred,
We have a plan to have the product on the market next year in Japan. But it will be difficult in the USA in 2006, because abuse tests in according with the recommendation of the UN regarding the transportaion of the battery will be necessary for the export of the battery and it will take a bit longer to carry such tests.
Best regards,
Keiichi Yamamato
Business Relations VP
Toshiba-Japan"
*******************************************************
That's why we are currently working here in the US with MIT to achieve the same goal and to keep the advancement within US soil.
Fred Sands, PhD.
Posted by: Fred | Apr 23, 2006 7:28:37 PM
Different Fred. This one drives GMs only 4 cylinder turbodiesel in NA. And Ive got no problem with PHEV. But hydrogen is at present a hoax and will not be close to viable until next-gen nukes or something like the sun (or some other tech that weve not heard on these pages)become available or make it off a drawing board. And ethanol will/does have its place and will get better, especially when it can be a part of BIODIESEL. Which was again conspicuously NOT mentioned. This planet moves on diesel and will not be replaced soon or easily. BTW W could make a big impression by parkin that 747 for a generic G5 while hes in country.
Posted by: fred dzlsabe | Apr 23, 2006 7:57:41 PM
The reason they cant switch to all electric faster is only very recently have they started mass production of the batteries needed and its only just begining to steamroll.
You cant make a million cars with batteries if you only have 100k batteries. Specialy if each full ev car needs 20 of em.
Up until just last year or so they were hand making the batteries. Now they use hundreds of 123 cells ganged together in many of the designs each set combined into a pack and multiple packs used to power the car.
IF we are lucky ev cars will take over a signifigant percentage of cars we use. But unless they develope long haul battery powered tanker trucks or make bio dessel pipelines the transport of the fuels the other cars use is gona be a magor cost issue outside the states where the fuel crops grow.
And that still doesnt factor in climate change and what that will do to fuel crop production.
H2 can be produced cheaply enough so those that need it and cant get a cheaper fuel will be able to afford to use it.
Thats all thats needed of it.
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 23, 2006 10:28:25 PM
We are oil dependent and have been for the better part of a century.Both dem and repub have licked the heels of the sauds.The sauds learned the limit of their power when the embargo resulted in ten dollar a barrel oil.The middle east zealots giggling over the ever increasing oil prices have not.The price of oil is indeed high and I welcome the increase.The high prices will advance the revolution of which I think most of us are hopeful.If the prices fall to far I would vote for a tax on oil that is applied to alternatives.{not if it goes into the treasury to be dispensed by our esteemed reps of both parties to distribute.} My hope for this site is that we can engage in civilized and productive discourse that exceeds that which our reps engage in.If we are enticed to left and right corners we will be just as noisy and unproductive as they have become.{both sides}p.s. write your rep to support american fuels choice and security act.It would switch support from suv's to hybrids and alternative vehicles, amongst other things.Get involved and be a part of the solution
Posted by: gerald earl | Apr 24, 2006 4:59:40 AM
As for refueling batteries:
Vanadium Redox cells
This generation for mobile apps is at 50kWh/kg
refuel in minutes. I know that it is not lithium but it's not a bad concept.
Comments?
http://www.vrb.unsw.edu.au/Magnam-VFuel%20website%20info.htm
Posted by: Reg | Apr 24, 2006 6:21:23 AM
Thank God for "In Love with Bush". This site very much needs a sense of humor. Thanks. If you are serious, I apologize before hand.
Posted by: t | Apr 24, 2006 7:57:36 AM
Notice to all commenters:
You are invited to discuss and to comment on the substance of a post. That adds richness and depth to the content, and it helps us all learn.
You are welcome to state your views on the adequacy or inadequacy of a particular policy approch, politician, business deal or technology.
Your are not welcome to attempt to turn this site into a blue-red foodfight with name-calling. All such posts, from whichever camp, will be deleted.
Mike Millikin, Green Car Congress
Posted by: Mike | Apr 24, 2006 9:53:08 AM
I'm glad to see people coming around to the idea of PV-assisted EV's or PHEV's, which I blogged in March '04.
The problem with mass conversion to EV in California is that most of California's electricity is generated with natural gas, and supplies are shrinking rapidly. But you don't need to use natural gas to run a turbine. If your powerplants are combined-cycle turbines at ~60% efficiency, you can take 1/3 of the oil now used for motor fuel and burn that in the powerplants instead of gas. Even after the losses, you're going to come out ahead burning oil in a 60%-efficient combined-cycle plant instead of a 15%-efficient Detroit powertrain.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Apr 24, 2006 9:55:20 AM
Your are not welcome to attempt to turn this site into a blue-red foodfight with name-calling. All such posts, from whichever camp, will be deleted.
I agree.
Now please delete the following, per your terms:
Posted by: Skip | Apr 24, 2006 7:04:04 AM
Posted by: Al Frankin | Apr 23, 2006 5:38:58 PM
Posted by: Howard Dean | Apr 23, 2006 1:13:02 PM
Posted by: B | Apr 24, 2006 10:19:38 AM
As well as this one:
Posted by: Paul Hilburger | Apr 23, 2006 4:17:48 AM
Thanks.
Posted by: B | Apr 24, 2006 10:21:32 AM
All right. Fine. I'll try to keep my posts closer to the subject of vehicle technologies, their advantages/disadvantages, potential, etc. I agree this is best for the site. I'm just extremely worried that the best laid plans oft go awry, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc, etc, and especially regarding etcetera.
Posted by: Wells | Apr 24, 2006 11:00:07 AM
Also in a way h2 cars help ev cars imensely as they both are purely electric propulsion and the push for one allows better motors for both.
Realy the only difference bewtween a purely battery car and a hs car is the size of the battery pack and the fact the h2 car will have a little fuel cell stack or 3 and some tanks down under the car nestled between the wheels... exactly where an all ev car would have its extra batteries....
In fact from the advanced designs ove seen most fuel cell cars are likely to be mostly plug in ev for short range trips...
Posted by: wintermane | Apr 24, 2006 1:29:12 PM
"Your are not welcome to attempt to turn this site into a blue-red foodfight with name-calling. All such posts, from whichever camp, will be deleted."
I agree.
Agree to agree, I'd prefer to stick to the issues, forgive my insanity, but what about these post?
Posted by: Wells | Apr 23, 2006 11:23:47 AM
Posted by: t | Apr 23, 2006 7:48:36 AM
Posted by: tom deplume | Apr 23, 2006 10:09:48 AM
The jist of my post still stands, if you want to discuss the issues, stop blaming one man or one administration and stop waiting on the government to do everything for us, We have to change ourselves! This problem was brewing long before the current prez. and will be with us long afterwards.
respectfully,
-skip
Posted by: Skip | Apr 24, 2006 2:45:54 PM
"Your are not welcome to attempt to turn this site into a blue-red foodfight with name-calling. All such posts, from whichever camp, will be deleted."
I agree.
Agree to agree, I'd prefer to stick to the issues, forgive my insanity, but what about these post?
Posted by: Wells | Apr 23, 2006 11:23:47 AM
Posted by: t | Apr 23, 2006 7:48:36 AM
Posted by: tom deplume | Apr 23, 2006 10:09:48 AM
The jist of my post still stands, if you want to discuss the issues, stop blaming one man or one administration and stop waiting on the government to do everything for us, We have to change ourselves! This problem was brewing long before the current prez. and will be with us long afterwards.
respectfully,
-skip
Posted by: Skip | Apr 24, 2006 2:46:43 PM
Forgive my stupidity once again, your right Al hamas, in my haste, I mistakenly mis-identified the post that are most offensive to any discussion on Earth Day.
should have read:
Posted by: Alex | Apr 23, 2006 8:45:16 AM
Posted by: tonychilling | Apr 23, 2006 10:52:11 AM
Posted by: Ed | Apr 23, 2006 1:50:03 PM
regards,
Posted by: Skip | Apr 24, 2006 3:32:32 PM
Some of the posts fingered above have been removed; others have not. Some that were not fingered have been removed.
It's not that hard to discuss and to question and debate without ranting.
Mike
Posted by: Mike | Apr 24, 2006 4:48:13 PM
Fact is some of us remember and relish the moment Pres. Carter asked Americans to conserve. Instead we get the post 9/11 threats incl. that if we stop buying indiscriminately, than the terrorists have won.
Posted by: Charlie | Apr 25, 2006 3:05:31 PM
argh
Posted by: gerald earl | Apr 26, 2006 12:01:21 PM
