Thanks to Honda for coming by our offices for a Ride-and-Drive with their new fuel cell vehicle, the FCX Clarity. It was raining, but we had fun anyway. Check out the photos below.

Joe Romm’s recent post on the Gristmill blog, “Flush!” disparages the Department of Energy’s award of a number of projects aimed at improving hydrogen storage technology.  Joe’s animus towards hydrogen is well known, if regrettable.  Rather than quarreling over a tiny fraction of the US research budget, everyone who is serious about a solution to global warming ought to embrace this research, along with research into biofuels and batteries.  We will need all these pathways to succeed – every one.  And each of the options still faces significant challenges.

For an enlightening analysis of just why we need to pursue all the pathways, see the recent National Academy report, Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies – A Focus on Hydrogen (July 08).  In a nutshell, the report concludes that while all the major options face substantial hurdles, even with success in biofuels and hybridization, we still will need hydrogen and fuel cells to achieve our policy result.

I am also mystified at the battery proponents who would pursue that form of energy storage, but reject out of hand storage of energy in the form of hydrogen.  The similarities ultimately are greater than the differences.  The challenges are also similar.  Why should people who care about global warming insist on limiting research to only a certain subset of potential solutions?

Looking past the vitriol, here are the main points Joe raises, and my response.

1.    No demand for fuel cell vehicles.  Joe is wrong here.  Honda, which has begun leasing an extraordinarily desirable fuel cell vehicle, reports more than 65,000 inquiries within a few months of its announcement of availability.  People will and do want these cars.  More broadly, people want good, fast, capable cars that are affordable.  The auto industry’s challenge is to meet those combined expectations with its products, no matter where the motive power comes from.

2.   Cost share of 20% is not enough.  With one minor exception, the awards were to research institutions, where 20% cost share is pretty standard – they complain about paying that much. The 20% for non-profit institutions has been federal policy at least since the Energy Policy Act of 1992. 

3.   Money for hydrogen research should be reallocated to cellulosic biomass and batteries.  At least Joe recognizes that batteries and biofuels face daunting challenges worthy of a commitment of substantial federal research dollars.  But a better strategy would be to increase funding for all the pathways with significant prospects.  Barack Obama got it right when he proposed $150 billion over 10 years.  Even this number is trivial in light of the dollar cost of oil — $150 billion would cover the cost of 8 months of US imports from OPEC at $100 per barrel.  There is no future in like-minded people quarreling over the few crumbs that represent our energy research budget today.

4.   What’s left after the researchers take their share should be spent on deploying plug-in hybrids.  Advocates estimate that plug-ins will cost $10,000 more than conventional cars if and when they hit the marketplace.  If the feds covered the entire cost delta, the $300 million hydrogen budget would only deploy 30,000 plug-in hybrids, not much in a passenger vehicle market that regularly tops 15 million annually.   In fact, the federal government already is and certainly will be supporting deployment of hybrids.  They will need the help. 

Joe’s proposal implicitly recognizes that plug-ins are not viable yet in today’s marketplace, even with gasoline at $4 plus.  But none of the options are “commercially viable” today.  All of us who care about global warming are hoping desperately that plug-ins can get to the marketplace with the performance and cost that will attract real customers and not coincidentally provide some benefits to society to hold the fort until fully capable EVs (battery or fuel cell, or more likely, both) come on line.

Just a couple more inconvenient truths about hydrogen and the alternatives:

There are more fuel cell vehicles on the road today than plug-ins by a factor of 10. 

If the infrastructure existed, hydrogen could be manufactured today for $3 per gallon equivalent (on-site natural gas reforming), and the effective cost is less than $1.50 when efficiency is factored in.

Honda’s newest vehicle has been certified by EPA at more than 80 miles per gallon equivalent.  

Sure, we will need to invest in infrastructure, but we would need infrastructure for biofuels – hundreds of plants – and deep subsidies.  We would also need charging infrastructure– not to mention a refurbished power grid for plug-ins if they ever capture significant market share.  A recent study by some Harvard business school types estimated sales of plug-ins in the “thousands” in 2030.  I hope they are wrong.  

On the other hand, the National Academy study calculated that $8 billion in federal support would be sufficient to jump start a national hydrogen infrastructure – a very encouraging number, indeed.

But the most telling argument in favor of hydrogen is that both the alternative pathways Joe Romm advocates require the combustion of fuels on board vehicles, with all the attendant emissions, inefficiencies, noise and so on.  Only dedicated battery EVs and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would allow us to break our combustion habit and fully electrify our vehicle fleet.  Neither option is commercial at the moment.  Research is complementary – better electric drive trains yield benefit both pathways, better batteries mean better FCVs. 

It’s too soon, and bad policy, to pick a winner.

~ Bob Rose, Executive Director, US Fuel Cell Council ~

 With the recent release of two vision documents (one from Japan and one from the California Fuel Cell Partnership) focusing on fuel cell vehicle commercialization and the hydrogen infrastructure, the time was ripe for a road trip. The Hydrogen Road Tour, a two-week trip across the U.S. to showcase fuel cell and hydrogen-powered cars, made a stop in Washington, D.C. on Thursday, August 14th and Fuel Cells 2000 was there.  

The tour, organized by the U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Energy, National Hydrogen Association (NHA), and California Fuel Cell Partnership (CaFCP), is making its way from Maine to California highlighting the progress made with the development of hydrogen vehicle and fueling technologies.   In Billerica, Massachusetts the other day, a new hydrogen station was opened in conjunction with the tour.  

 The parade of vehicles pulled up in front of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) where the media and public waited to see the cars firsthand as well as drive or ride around the city in them.  Under Secretary of Energy Clarence H. “Bud” Albright, Jr. gave a welcome speech followed by speakers from the Department of Transportation, the NHA and CaFCP.  There were cars on display from General Motors, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai-Kia (showed one of each), Volkswagen, BMW, Daimler and Ford.  

Check out the Hydrogen Road Tour website to find out the next stop.  More pictures coming soon.

In the wake of record high gasoline prices, cheesy websites and poorly researched news reports are promoting new products that promise drivers they can improve gas mileage by “up to 50%!”

Products like Water4Gas, the Hydro Assist Fuel Cell and other “HHO generators” claim that drivers can drastically boost horsepower, performance and gas millage by utilizing hydrogen in a new, breakthrough system.

Of course, we’ve all heard that hydrogen is being considered by auto manufacturers as a solution for next-generation automobiles and busses, but the public wants an answer now. So why should we have to wait for those fat-cat auto executives to get off their butts to do something about this looming crisis?

If this inexpensive “solution” is available today, why not take action? Besides, we can get hydrogen from good old, everyday tap water. Plus, if I can stick it to the large oil companies and OPEC, I’ll finally be able to teach them a lesson!

Sounds great, right?

WRONG!

So WHY is this wrong?

First, these products don’t live up to their claims. 

Professor Bob Paasch at Oregon State University says these products simply don’t work.  While these products have the ability to manufacture hydrogen from a car’s alternator, the process cannot and does not produce more energy.  Doing so would violate the second law of thermodynamics.   He logically concludes that “If it were true, every power company and auto company in the world would be using it.”

While I agree with Professor Paasch, personally, I don’t care if people want to tinker with their cars and give these products a try.  But a problem arises when manufactures of these products try to pawn these devices off as hydrogen fuel cells.  They are not.   In fact, they’re not even close. 

If you are already a Fuel Cell Insider reader, chances are you already know that a hydrogen fuel cell converts hydrogen and oxygen in an electrochemical process to produce electricity.  The electricity produced by a fuel cell can be used to power anything from a cell phone and laptop to a vehicle or building. 

As I mentioned earlier, sloppy reporting and fly-by-night websites promote products like the Hydro Assist Fuel Cell, leading people to think they’re purchasing fuel cells, when in fact they’re not.   

The problem has gotten so bad that some fairly smart people have fallen victim to this technology mis-representation.  For example, Tom and Ray from NPR’s Car Talk talked to a caller who wanted to convert his vehicle to a “hydrogen fuel cell vehicle”.   After it was clear that the caller was describing a hydrogen generator, the duo failed to correct his mistake.  (This is after two hosted  PBS’s Car of the Future program, which, among other things explored fuel cell vehicles).  The crew at MythBusters also made the same mistake when they tested one of these “hydrogen fuel cells” during a recent program. 

In an instant, millions of people across the nation now had reason to suspicious about anything labeled a fuel cell.   Fuel cell skeptics may find this particularly humorous, but the fact remains, these products have nothing in common with actual fuel cells. 

In my opinion, if manufactures of HHO generators stand behind their products, they should be working to ensure that their products are properly labeled. 

Legitimate fuel cell companies working to commercialize their products are proud of what they produce.  They feel that their applications are efficient, can lower green house gas emissions, and will provide users with quality products designed to meet an energy need. 

Failing to properly label these products does a disservice to the hard work that fuel cell companies have done, and to the progress the industry has made. 

~ Bud DeFlaviis~

Director of Government Affairs,US Fuel Cell Council

A recent article in the architectural design magazine, Building Design, discusses the future use of fuel cells in new buildings.  Growing concerns about GHG and carbon emissions are leading to greener design efforts, especially given London’s plan for new commercial buildings to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent.  There are now plans for five London buildings to have a portion of their power supply delivered by fuel cells, and around the world fuel cells are fast becoming part of the climate change discussion.  Just last year, Ballard Power Systems and Plug Power sponsored a study outlining the role fuel cells can play in addressing these issues.  The author in Building Design quotes an engineer involved in these projects, who says “Ten to 15 years from now, every single new building will be powered by fuel cells…It’s the magic bullet — until we get fusion power going.”  For more building installations, check out Fuel Cells 2000’s worldwide installation database here - Japan has already installed more than two thousand fuel cells at residences across the country, and there are thousands more worldwide.