Sample letter to save federal funding

So - I’m sure you are all busy crafting tons of letters, right? Take a moment now and send one to Congress by going to http://capwiz.com/fuelcells/home/ or send something similar to the one below to your local newspaper.  The following is a sample letter-to-the-editor that we encourage you to use.  If you have other suggestions or want to share pieces of your letter, add them in the comments.  

 

 

Energy Secretary Chu has recently recommended that the federal fuel cell vehicle program be cut from the 2010 federal budget, believing that fuel cell vehicle technology and the hydrogen infrastructure are not yet ready for deployment.  The secretary would instead shift the Department of Energy (DOE) focus, and funding, to R&D of vehicles with more “short-term” promise, such as plug-in hybrids. 

 

But the reality is that - in the US alone - there are already 140 fuel cell cars leased to consumers.  These vehicles have accumulated 85,000 hours of operation and have been driven more than 1.9 million miles.  In addition, some northern California transit agencies are operating fuel cell buses in transit service, with more being added soon. 

 

So far, no auto manufacturer-produced plug-in battery vehicles are operating on America’s roadways and none are under demonstration evaluation by the federal government.  To be ready for consumers, advanced vehicle batteries will require lots of research, development and demonstration time, as well as technological breakthroughs, to attain good reliability and performance, decrease cost and reduce the significant battery size and weight.

 

Fuel cell vehicles are much farther along the development cycle than plug-in vehicle batteries, having made major strides in reliability, performance and cost-reduction and attaining significant real-world roadway demonstration time.  Hydrogen and fuel cells have met or exceeded nearly all of the technical milestones set out by US DOE and are on a path towards commercialization within the next 5-10 years. 

 

These road-ready fuel cell vehicles surprise people by looking and performing like today’s cars.  They are roomy and comfortable.  They accelerate quickly.  They are safe.  Refueling takes just a few minutes.  Plus they get more than 250-miles per tank and can achieve above 50 mpg (the Honda Clarity is EPA certified at 72 mpg).  Fuel cell vehicles operate at nearly 60% energy efficiency and produce absolutely no harmful emissions.

 

Additionally, hydrogen fuel is available nationwide today and is cost competitive with gasoline on a pennies-per-mile basis.  Hydrogen from natural gas is clean, energy efficient and low carbon, and opens the door to renewable and other low carbon sources. More than two dozen hydrogen stations are already open in California and getting hydrogen to American drivers as fuel cell vehicles enter the marketplace will cost a small fraction of the cost of maintaining today’s gasoline infrastructure. 

 

Terminating the federal fuel cell vehicle program - just as the technology is beginning to mature and commercialization is in sight - is counterproductive to our country’s goals of energy efficiency and reduced carbon emissions.  GM, Honda, Toyota, Daimler and Volkswagen all plan to continue their fuel cell vehicle development, with Toyota recently announcing that they anticipate commercialization of their fuel cell vehicle by 2015 or sooner. 

 

To prepare for our hydrogen future, continued government funding and strong clean vehicle policies are needed to support hydrogen infrastructure development and further fuel cell refinements.  Combining government funding and guidance with industry investment and know-how, these technologies can be brought to commercialization and cost-competitiveness much faster than when industry works alone.

 

Importantly, a recent National Academies of Science report concluded that, “the greatest possible reductions in greenhouse gases would occur if biofuels, fuel-efficient conventional vehicles, and hydrogen vehicles are all pursued simultaneously, rather than seen as competitors.”  So let’s not short-change fuel cell vehicles.  We will need a variety of clean propulsion technologies.  They all need our attention today in order to be ready for our clean driving future.

 

If you want links and resources to include in your letter, just let us know!

 

 

06.03.2009
|Back|
  1. June 3, 2009 @ 4:45 pm
    TXCHL Instructor says...

    If it’s such a good idea, why does it need to use my tax dollars as a subsidy?

  2. June 3, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
    TX CHL Instructor says...

    No comments yet, eh? How about the one I made several hours ago? Or is that you can’t find anybody to support this nonsense? I see *my* comment got deleted. That’s intellectual dishonesty. This one will get deleted, too, I have no doubt, but you won’t be able to do the same to my tweets, or my blog(s).

  3. June 4, 2009 @ 9:49 am
    Brynne says...

    Instructor - no deleting here! You weren’t signed in, so I simply had to go in this morning and approve the day’s comments.  Thanks for contributing to the discussion. 

  4. June 5, 2009 @ 2:07 pm
    Jennifer says...

    TXCHL - the proposed budget for biofuels (with stimulus and loan guarantees) is around 2 billion, the proposed budget for batteries is around 3 billion - those are your tax dollars, too - the 100 million for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is a drop in that bucket and there are more fuel cell vehicles on the road today.  Why kneecap a program when it is starting to bear fruit?  Why not fund all pathways and see which one gets there first?  We are going to need all the help we can get to fight climate change and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, so why choose now?

  5. June 9, 2009 @ 9:05 am
    Todd says...

    I agree with Jennifer.  The reviews of driving fuel cell cars that I’ve read show that they are more than viable, they’re competitive in performance.  The challenge is to get their cost down, since even in semi-large scale production some of the materials and complexity make them prohibitively expensive.  I know companies like GM, Honda, Mercedes, and Toyota are working on this and will get there someday.  To not support the lone domestic competitor,GM, during this critical period would be a mistake, even if fuel cells won’t contribute a profit for some time to come. 

  6. June 9, 2009 @ 9:14 pm
    Philip Block says...

    To the TXCHL Instructor:Good question. Now let’s see if I can give you an ansewer that will make sense. First, and I don’t  mean to be demeaning, but a through knowledge of the Fuel Cell would help to give you a partial answer. The Fuel Cell promises to open the door for thousands of other uses, beside mobile platforms. When the first cars hit the road, circa 1885, they were simple instruments compared to today. Just about any decent mechanic could build one. The evidence was that hundreds of auto mfgs. sprung up around the world. But, because of low production rates and little standardization, they were expensive. Then around 1908, some 25 years later, Ford mass produced a standard car that brought the price down. Also, it took that long before the first gas station was established. Gasoline was purchased at drug stores, hardware stores, etc, until then. Now today, the Fuel Cell, although simple in theory, is difficult to build. It is a high technology science. I know, I have been a Fuel Cell advocate for over 40 years. Over the years I, and a number of others I know of, tried it and realized it was beyond our capability as individuals. It took large companies with the resources, such as UTC, GE, etc. and Gov’t contracts (space program) to further the development and manufacturing techniques. Now, the world has finally realized that is it a big answer to a big problem;  the demand for energy. Soo–if we (the taxpayer) can pump 90 billion dollars into a hole in the ground for nuclear waste (Yucca Mt.) that has been building for 10 years and is still not finished; billions of dollars to clean up the nuclear waste sitting around in about 22 states, with no promise it will ever be accomplished; nuclear power that has proved to be a financial disaster; a 20th century technology that is today technologically obselete for civilian use (military use excluded) in the 21st century; sooo-financial help is needed and, sorry to say, only the Gov’t (ie. taxpayer) has the resources. I believe that when you really learn about the uses and benefits of a fuel cell, you will agree that it will be money well spent (hopefully).

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Want to join the conversation?