DoE's Chu Wants to Gut Long-Term/Long-Range Fuel Cell Vehicles Program in Favor of Short-Term/Short-Range Plug-In Hybrids

The government is about to go into deja-vu-all-over-again mode -- again -- when it comes to automotive efficiency and, very importantly now, global environmental health and well being.

In the '50s, '60s and '70s, American car makers and the government didn't take the Japanese seriously with their funny little, cheap-to-run, quality cars. Ditto with the Koreans when they showed up later, and ditto again when Toyota and Honda launched their hybrids in the last decade.

Now it's happening again: Barely in office, DoE secretary Steven Chu, a Nobel-Prize winning physicist, in his 2010 budget request wants to zero out the department's successful, relatively well-funded and well-working hydrogen and fuel cell program. He wants to cut it down to a bare-bones research effort, in sync with recommendations from a couple of well-meaning but blinkered, well plugged-in (pun intended) Washington plug-in hybrid zealots named Joseph Romm and James Woolsey. Romm is a physicist, a former high DoE official and now editor of the blog "ClimateProgress.org." Woolsey is a former head of the CIA and advised John McCain on energy policy during the last presidential campaign. Both were part of the Clinton administration.

Chu, Romm, Woolsey and others argue that plug-in hybrids are much closer to reality and a much better near-term technology to deal with climate issues than hydrogen and fuel cell cars. This is highly debatable, the Obama commitment to large federal incentives to get lots of plug-in hybrids on the road in six years notwithstanding: A Toyota executive was quoted in a May 18 Bloomberg story as saying while there will be a market for plug-in hybrids, demand may be limited by price, recharge time and battery durability. Sales may reach 50,000 units/year at most and could be as low as 3,500 units, Bill Reinert, Toyota's national advanced technology manager told a National Academy of Science panel in Washington.

The major car makers, the guys who will have to actually build clean cars in large numbers to a) make a living and b) make a long-term difference in alleviating global warming, are largely ignoring the plug-in dogmatists: Major car makers Honda, Toyota, and Daimler are continuing to develop hydrogen fuel cell cars for the market, said a May 11 Bloomberg story -- a few days after Secretary Chu announced his plans to gut DoE's hydrogen and fuel cell program. Germany's Daimler wants to start production this summer, and Toyota said it will start in 2015, maybe as early as 2014.

GM wants to move ahead on fuel cells as well with its large, 20-year-old, $1 billion program -- government money or not (Other than what seemed to have been relatively small bucks in the early '90s when GM acquired fuel cell technology from Los Alamos National Laboratory, GM never took DoE money for fuel cell r&d but still participates in DoE demo programs) -- but there is that pesky potential bankruptcy problem.

Sandy Thomas, a former aide to Sen. Tom Harkin with a Ph.D. in electrical engineering and now the president of H2Gen, a maker of advanced hydrogen generation equipment in Alexandria, VA, has worked up a fascinating, instructive side-by-side comparison of the current status of fuel cell and plug-in hybrids. (The initial reduction in greenhouse gases per vehicle is about the same for both categories -- 46% -- according to Argonne National Laboratory and cited by Thomas):

How many manufacturer-built (as opposed to retrofits or inventor-builts, for example) vehicles are actually on the road?
Fuel cell vehicles: 318 world wide (Honda and Kia have plans for leasing or making available another 300 over the next three years, according to an internal GM document).
Plug-in vehicles: zero (from major manufacturers. Some aftermarket firms have retrofitted commercial hybrids by adding batteries to provide plug-in capability, according to Thomas)

How many vehicles made by manufacturers have been placed on American roads, with performance monitored by a U.S. national laboratory?
Fuel cells: 140.
Plug-in hybrids: zero.

How many miles have vehicles traveled in this real-life evaluation program?
Fuel cells: 1.92 million miles.
Plug-in hybrids: zero.

According to MIT, how much more would they cost consumers in mass production compared to regular gasoline cars (Fuel cell vehicles with 350 mile range, plug-in hybrids with 30 miles all-electric range)?
Fuel cells: $5,040
Plug-in hybrids: $6,020

According to Argonne National Laboratory, how much would these vehicles reduce oil consumption compared to regular cars?
Fuel cells: 100%
Plug-in hybrids: 60%

And finally, how much would the hydrogen fueling infrastructure for fuel cell vehicles and the electrical charging outlets for plug-in hybrids cost, respectively, according to the National Academy of Sciences (for fuel cell vehicles) and Idaho National Laboratory (for plug-in hybrids)?
Fuel cells: $955/vehicle
Plug-in hybrids: $878 to $2,150/vehicle.

OK. Enough. It seems the United States is once again proudly poised to slip behind. Bottom line: Ten, 15 years down the road, the National Commentariat will once again wring hands collectively and lament in blistering j'accuse prose, "how could we let the Japanese and the Germans and the Koreans (and maybe the Chinese by then), get ahead of us? Didn't anybody see this coming in 2009?" (Of course some saw it, but just not the folks in command).

Comments

[markus7]

Not your best article Peter,

Sandy Thomas, the “president of H2Gen, a hydrogen equipment maker” has produced a study that, no surprise, cherry picks its assumptions and data to show fuel cell powered vehicles are somehow competitive with plug in hybrids.

These cherry picked assumptions and data combine to be a laughable pile of engineering non-sense. Up to $2150 per charging station for a plug in hybrid?? With a $20 extension cord I can plug into a 110 V outlet for overnight charging or cheaply add a 220 V outlet if that’s not a fast enough charge.

When a plug in hybrid is not running its combustion engine, (the way I plan to run mine 80% of the time), it is at least 30% more efficient than a fuel cell car powered by electrically generated H2.

If you assume the source of both the H2 and the electricity for the plug in hybrid is natural gas, then by running a fuel cell permanently in your home connected to a natural gas line to produce hot water and home heat as a byproduct while it generates electricity to recharge your hybrid, you might use less than half the amount of natural gas required for an H2 fuel cell car plus natural gas for home heating just due to less wasted energy.

It is such a relief to have someone like Steven Chu in government. I was so tired of the incompetent political hacks in the Bush administration.

[KillTheMessenger]

Very nice piece of writing... thank you. You greatly underestimate those "political hacks" in the Bush administration, though. They knew very well what they were doing by supporting hydrogen fuel cell research for transportation... let's just acknowledge that they weren't primarily thinking about reducing US dependence on fossil fuels and helping the environment, though. It was more about filling the koffers of some of their "friends".

[Stanley]

Plug-in versus Hydrogen is a weird argument. Plug-in and hydrogen fuel cell together not either/or is the answer. The government investment isn't the issue. The consumer's investment is the real issue. Government should promote both options that lead us away from oil dependency and carbon emissions. The market will determine what makes sense.

[KillTheMessenger]

So why should the government promote a technology that's dead on arrival? So we do not have to admit that the majority of our population is about as science literate as a tree stump?

Thanks, but I pass on that notion and encourage you to learn a little thermodynamics.

[Overtone]

Forget Fuel Cells - Future Cars Can Become Power Plants When Parked!

Revolutionary breakthroughs make possible a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine - SPICE™.

A SPICE can be used to power a hybrid. It needs no fuel and will end the need to plug-in, as the engine can run when parked and wirelessly transmit and sell power to the local utility.

The SPICE is powered by hydrinos. One barrel of hydrinos can equal several hundred barrels of oil.

To learn more about SPICE and hydrinos see: www.chavaenergy.com Look under the heading HOW?

Until now, car ownership has been an expense. A few plug-in hybrids, equipped with a two way plug, can feed power to the local utility while parked. The owner of such a car could earn up to $4,000 every year.

Payments to car owner’s driving a hybrid powered by a SPICE are likely to be substantially more.

When a substantial number of vehicles selling power to the grid fill a parking garage, it will have become a multi-megawatt power plant.

The cost of many vehicles might be paid for by utilities, as they purchase power whenever needed.

The parked cars each become decentralized power plants - a rapid, cost-effective alternative to the many tough and costly challenges of constructing new coal burning and nuclear power generation facilities.

[KillTheMessenger]

What people do not get to see about hydrogen are the basic facts: we don't have any, we have to make it. We do not have good ways of making any because natural gas cracking is just as much a source of greenhouse gases as electrolysis with electricity from coal fired power plants. What people also do not get to see is the ugliness of hydrogen storage and transport. Or would you have thought that this is a hydrogen fuel tank?

http://www.fibacanning.com/photogallery/compressed%20gas%20trailer2.jpg

This is the only practical way to transport hydrogen right now. The largest ones hold about 250,000 cubic feet of hydrogen (at normal pressure). That happens to be about 7080m^3. Now, since hydrogen at normal pressure has a density of a mere 90g/m^3, the largest compressed gas tanker can hold no more than 640kg of hydrogen. If we multiply this by four to five we arrive at the mass of an equivalent amount of hydrocarbons that bind that amount of hydrogen chemically. So that's roughly three metric tons of liquid gasoline. Now... in comparison a regular gasoline truck carries about 25 tons of liquid... eight times as much. Moreover, by burning the carbon in the gasoline, we also get a lot more energy out of gasoline than we would out of its hydrogen content alone, making the effective transportation density of hydrogen more than an order of magnitude smaller than that of ordinary gas.

That's the reality of hydrogen....

[KillTheMessenger]

Hydrogen is what I would call "feel good science". Stick a few wires into salt water, connect a battery and see the bubbles rise up! It's that simple... every child can understand... it's clean, it's easy, it's perfect.

That, of course, is only an illusion. We are fascinated by what we do not see, like the twin in the magically disappearing and then reappearing magician's assistant trick.

[JnrNorman]

Hydrogen AGGLOMERATES (clumps together) when it sits in a tank plastic or metal.
Hydroxy Gas doesnt clump when it sits in a metal tank.
Hydroxy Gas (THE NEW PROPANE)
can be burned in your existing vehicle using a propane converter

Propane Powered Vehicles as an Alternative Fuel Option | 2008 Gas ...Information on using propane as an alternative fuel for your vehicle. ... Saab, Saturn, Scion, Smart, Subaru, Suzuki, Toyota, Volkswagen, Volvo ... For over 25 years, propane has been an efficient fuel for the automotive industry. ...
www.autotropolis.com/wiki/index.php?title=Propane_as_an_Alternative_Fuel

[Sumocat]

Yeah, we'll see how you feel about hydrogen fuel when the first ExxonMobil hydrogen station pops up. Oh, did you think the multi-billion dollar corporations that control our current fueling station infrastructure were going to disappear? Sorry, we go forward with hydrogen, those guys will still call the shots, and they'll be cracking hydrogen from fossil fuels. Explain how we'll deal with their control over fueling, then I'll take your analysis seriously. Without a comprehensive plan for at-home hydrogen production using electricity and water (optionally but ideally drawn from renewable sources), I will not support hydrogen fuel.

[InspiredByTruth]

Hydrogen has been the promised tech of the future for the last 20 years, and has only managed to produce 300+ concept cars, almost all experimental, some costing as much as a Buggati Veyron (like the Honda FCX Clarity). Meanwhile, thanks to oil prices and new CAFE standards, almost every single automaker except Honda has announced plans for either full EVs or extended-range EVs (hybrids). The article suggestion that "as few as 3,500" could be sold every year is laughable.

-Nissan, Mitsubishi, Chrysler, GM and Ford have already committed plans for plugins by 2012, with 1st year production figures from 10K-30K first year, for each.

-Saturn (whose EVs will now to GMC), BMW, Toyota, Chevy, Audi, Hyundai, Tesla, BYD, Mercedes and Volkswagen have announced for plans for plug-ins or plugin-hybrids for 2011-2013.

-Detriot Electric is planning 30K EVs for the US by 2011 and another supplier, Magna, is marketing their EV around to the automakers (Ford has already signed on) and want it produced in high quantities to lower the price.

There will be at least 70K full EVs on the US market by 2012, and at least double that in plug-in hybrids by 2013-14....with production for all those vehicles doubling or tripling for the next couple years after that. This manufacturing capacity will also drive down battery costs making these vehicles even more attractive, stimulating further demand.

[InspiredByTruth]

Lets see....the Honda fuel cell FCX is rumored to cost between $1-2MILLION per car....for a that has about the same range as a Tesla. And in a couple years you'll be able to get a luxury Model S with a 300-mile range and half the cost of the Roadster. Hydrogen fuel cells are NOT economically viable, and even hydrogen advocates say it will be at least another 20-30 years before they are.

In ten, 15 years, the cost of battery packs for EVs will have significantly declined, while their range will be predictably significantly longer. If Mitsubitchi, Ford, and Mercedes can release a 100mile range plug-in in 2011, imagine where they will be doing 10-15 years after continued battery advances and competition. In ten years nobody will regret committing to EVs over unproven and impossibly expensive hydrogen.

The real pushers behind hydrogen are the oil lobby. Right now hydrogen is made from steam-treated natural gas...Natural gas is found in the same places oil is extracted from...on land owned by the oil companies. Hydrogen poses no threat to the oil cartel, they'd profit either way. If we switched to hydrogen tomorrow the oil companies would still be in full control, making money from the pit to the pump, just as they do now with oil. EVs destroy that profit model.

[Ping]

It's cheaper to go with a pug in.

[condor101]

I am so proud and happy that huffingtonpost.com exists, because not only do I read a lot of interesting articles on this site, but I can also share my opinion and comment. It's no longer a one sided communication, whereby I as a reader is subjected to a so-called 'experts' dis-informative, dis-ingenuous article without a rebuttal. No longer do people have to just read a false article without recourse.

Fortunately, through huffingtonpost, I and thousands of readers are allowed to share insightful opinions and facts which either can corrobate with an article or tear its' fundamentals to shreds, as is the case with this article by you Hoffmann. Please read my earlier post below.

Thank you Ariana Huffington for allowing free expression of thought. You are light years ahead of all the major media news outlets. I love Huffington post.

[joebaggadonuts]

Seems to me that if the fossil fuel companies want to fund this, they can. Don't expect taxpayers to do it for them. They are the only ones with a positive cash flow and huge profits these days. They support the car companies too. Again, if they want to fund it, let 'em. But leave my tax dollars for something useful, like a smart grid which will pay me for whatever my plug-in hybrid, my solar panels and my wind turbine generates and spills back into the grid.

[joebaggadonuts]

Also, note that Buffet is betting on electrics. You think you are smarter than him, spend YOUR money on Hydrogen cars. Don't expect me to pay my taxes to do it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/warren-buffett-to-help-vo_n_207902.html

[condor101]

Of course the major manufacturers and people like you will promote Hydrogen Fuel Cells. It would perpetuate our dependence on some type of fuel by a manufacturer. God forbd that I place solar panels on my home and plug in my electric hybrid car. What a sin it would be if I tapped the sun for my energy needs and didn't have to go to some fuel station to get explosive hydrogen. It's no wonder people like you guys and Big corporations like Exxon Mobile, BP, Toyota, GM, etc are advocating cars that run on Hydrogen Fuel Cells. NO THANK YOU!
I will wait for the electric hybrid Aptera vehicle coming to market this October and gets 100+ miles per charge.

[Thermodynamics]

direct methanol fuel cells
If they can become a commercial reality direct methanol fuel cells have some advantages.

Hydrogen is pretty much a storage medium. We would probably make it using electricity. That is one issue. But the part that is of concern in autos is that H2 is not such a safe or convenient storage medium. Unlike most gases, it has a very wide range of explosive concentrations. It is a tiny molecule and tends to leak through seals easier than other gases.

Methanol is a liquid and is a lot easier to handle safely.

Of course, any final implementation will depend on a lot of factors and it is hard to predict the practical solution at this time.

[KillTheMessenger]

So what's the efficiency of the best available methanol fuel cell and what's the max. possible thermodynamic efficiency?

What's the system efficiency of methanol from production to wheel?

Just asking because I haven't looked at methanol in detail, yet. Could be a winner... could be a loser. We should together look at the numbers and see if they can compete against wind, solar and batteries.

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

I haven't heard much from the methanol people except the same empty boosterism that I heard from people who actually (amazingly STILL) think that ethanol will allow America to become 'energy independent'.
So far asking specifics about how much methanol we can realistically produce has gotten me nothing but the online equivalent of a blank look.
So I'm open minded, but frankly suspicious.

[MrBadger]

Here's a thought: Maybe we could walk and chew gum at the same time?

Hey, it's possible.

[KillTheMessenger]

Walking, chewing gum and repealing the laws of nature we can not. Dr. Chu simply acknowledged the latter. You may still walk and chew your gum at the same time, anytime you like.