Pissing into the wind.

It's really a shame. We could be using that money to develop something that has a real chance of working.

BioDiesel and Alcohol spring to mind.

Last time I checked, this site was called GREENcarcongress.com

So I'm amazed how many people are vehemently opposed to carbon emissions-free vehicle research.

I can sort of sense that your snarkiness was more in response to the fact that it was taxpayer dollars, rather than the fact that it was for hydrogen.

In that regard, I'm with you that the most significant push for zero-emissions technology has to come from the private sector, in response to consumer demand.

"It never ceases to amaze me how many commenters here already know exactly which fields of research will prove fruitful, and which will not."

It's simple. Biodiesel already works. Ethanol is very close. Battery-based electric cars are close. Hybrids already work.

Hydrogen does not yet, and may never work. People need to stop thinking about hydrogen as some new advanced fuel, and think about it as just another form of battery. In that context, we should be spending money on reducing the weight of and improving the performance of existing battery technologies.

"Hydrogen does not yet, and may never work."

1. It most certainly does work. Hydrogen-powered cars and trucks are buses are driving around today. Are there issues to be overcome before they become consumer-ready? Of course. But there are issues to overcome (supply, distribution) for biodiesel and ethanol as well.

2. The reason we do research in the first place is to make things work. That alone is enough reason to research hydrogen-based technologies. If biodiesel and ethanol are as close as you say (which I believe they are, indicentally), then it should be a simple matter for the private sector to pick up and run with it, and let the government do the research to advance the next technology to viability.

Long term, I think the solution to our problems will be a mix of fuels and technologies...biodiesel, alcohol, CNG, electric, hydrogen, you name it. Coal, nuclear, solar, and wind as electrical generation technologies all have a role to play as well. I think it would be the height of foolishness to pre-emptively eliminate one or more options from the mix, because we already know what the "best" solution will be.

Looks like I was typing at the same time as Matthew ... I'll point out that funding hydrogen beyond basic research (applied research, car subsidies, filling station subsidies) is indeed picking a winner "because we already know what the 'best' solution will be" and is indeed "the height of foolishness to pre-emptively [select] one or more options."

Although I am skeptical about research on hydrogen, I favor continuing it unless it is seen as the magic bullet we wait for while neglecting implementation of alternatives that we can implement now with existing or soon to be existing technology.

We cannot wait until some promised future of magical fuels which require no resources or produce no greenhouse gases. Unless there is a major, magical breakthrough, which we shouldn't count on, we need to make decisions now which make us less dependent upon the automobile and use as little fuel as possible when we have to use it.

None of the existing alternatives can solve our problem if we continue business as usual which means motoring as usual. You can't fix the problem if we continue to increase our mileage and China builds up to our standards. Something's gotta give. Hydrogen is dangerous because it tends to, on purpose, make people complacent. If we just promise hydrogen, then politicians don't have to make the hard decisions.

You will notice that Bush never talks about conservation. He does this because, in his mind, the so called American way of life is nonnegotiable.

Biofuel and ethanol will probably marginally improve the situation, but not enough if we do not combine these fuels with better economy and less driving.

Perhaps i was a little too brief in my post. The point i was goin for was that the money currently being spent on hydrogen, which is not currently marketable, and may never be, could be much better spent on battery based electric cars, biofuels, etc.

Saying that there are hydrogen cars running on the road does not mean that they should be.

Aj

The research funding sounds great, but the DOE allocates all of the money to tier 1 programs and some university affiliates. Automotive Tier 1 welfare programs. This kills any kind of innovation. To be successful in achieving a breakthrough this type of funding helps. The problem is that DOE is a bought organization by the tier 1 lobbyists to bail them out of bad programs. The types of projects that need to be explored or evaluated are very high risk programs. DOE is like an old fart that always stinks. They are lack the imagination or risk initiative to do what needs to be done. They are bought to protect the auto/oil industry, restrict new technologies from being commercialized without tier 1 approval, and keep US minimum acceptable standards job one.

God Bless America!

I don't know exactly what you consider to be 'massive amounts of highly radioactive waste'. In terms of volume or mass, the wast produced by a nuke plant is pretty small and fairly easy to handle/store safely, when compared to the massive amounts of coal that would need to be burned instead, and the resulting emissions.