Funding For Automotive Fuel Cells Cut 293
rgarbacz writes "The US will stop funding research on automotive fuel cells and redirect the work towards stationary plants, because of slow progress on the research. Developing those cells and coming up with a way to transport the hydrogen is a big challenge, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in releasing energy-related details of the administration's budget for the year beginning Oct. 1. Dr. Chu said the government preferred to focus on projects that would bear fruit more quickly. The industry and the National Hydrogen Association criticized the decision and declared their intention to fight for funding. Dr. Chu also announced that funding for a coal gasification pilot project, cut by the Bush administration, will be reinstated. The Obama administration will also drop spending for research on the exploration of oil and gas deposits because the industry itself has ample resources for that, Dr. Chu said."
Re:Real problem with auto fuel cells, the hydrogen (Score:4, Informative)
As far as I know, hydrogen fuel was always really an energy storage medium rather than a fuel in and of itself. While it may be the most common element in the universe, free H2 isn't especially abundant on Earth. If you could store it well, it would allow electric vehicles to have the same convenience as petroleum-powered vehicles.
The biggest problems with pure electric cars are that the range is limited and that you can't refill it in a matter of minutes. A pure battery-EV doesn't really allow any kind of long-distance road trip. This is the appeal of plug-in hybrids, it gives you range and easy refilling capability while potentially allowing zero-emissions driving during normal city driving/commuting. Although a hydrogen energy storage system would require new infrastructure, it would serve as a great long-term solution that fits with most peoples lifestyles.
As with any kind of EV, the 'green-ness' depends on the original source of the power. Even from fossil fuels it would probably be slightly better, since large fixed plants are more efficient and cleaner, but definitely better with wind/solar/nuclear/geothermal/whatever.
Note though, that the requirement for all of this is efficient, easy and safe storage, which has been going nowhere with plenty of funding. I think biofuels from non-food crops on non-food-producing land (i.e. not corn ethanol) are a more feasible long term solution, either with or without plug-in hybrid vehicles.
No New Infrastructure Needed (Score:3, Informative)
...require new infrastructure for all modes of operation (versus EVs which only need new infrastructure for long trips)
There was an engineer on the west coast who electrified his Honda CRX. His solution for long trips -- hitch a little cart on the back with a generator. You could even fuel these with propane bottles, and so avoid the whole petroleum infrastructure. Or, you could use the petroleum infrastructure, but use it to distribute biofuels for the generator modules.
gasoline prices and summer driving season (Score:3, Informative)
Well, part of the "summer driving season" prices are due to increased demand from more individuals and families taking long car trips on vacations (basic econ: fixed supply + increase in demand => higher prices). Another big difference in costs is that they tend to use different formulations and additives in the summer [mapllc.com]. Note that the change-over starts happening in May [slashdot.org] which just might explain the recent price increase you've been seeing. See if your location corresponds to the areas covered by the regulation. Note that even if you aren't you may still be obtaining gas from a refinery in a covered area, which only produces summer RFG for efficiency.
On the other hand, if you'd tried to argue that the gasoline refiners are deliberately shutting down refineries to decrease supplies and increase prices, you might be able to find some supporting evidence. [slate.com]
range is fixed already (Score:3, Informative)
Another poster pointed it out up above a little in the thread. It's called a generator trailer for long trips. Short trips (we'll call it 100 miles or less) are now adequately covered with existing battery tech, thousands of home built EV rides have proven this. And AC Propulsion had an interesting variation on the genny trailer, it attached in two points and then made an inline rigid "modular hybrid" that was easy to drive with and didn't have any of the "backing up" problems that some people might have with conventional trailers. Their high performance electric car + the genny trailer still fit inside a normal parking space as well, and gave the electric car an unlimited range using conventional fuels when it was really needed, just like any other normal car.
The main reason we don't have electric vehicles right now is that it is seriously disruptive technology that really screws with and threatens most established motor vehicle manufacturers and their kissing cuzzins in the oil industry. They have fought it severely and want to keep pushing overly complicated and overly expensive "hybrids", and keep throwing one off "concept cars" at the public, because they can make more "per unit" and they make more with repairs and faster replacements with the type of vehicles they make and sell now.
EVs are so simple and robust in design compared to most gasoline cars that built in quantity they can be cheap and last easily twice as long without major repairs. Even with today's average kilowatt hour rates, it is conceivable to only have around a 2-3 cents a mile driving cost. The savings right there might pay for your insurance and eventual battery pack replacement, and then some. think about how easy it will be every 5 or ten years to "upgrade" by just getting a new battery pack that will be more powerful and lighter, etc. You won't *need* to buy a new car near as often.
Either way, the Chinese and Indian builders will win here with really cheap and "good enough" electric cars for the masses, not those lame "start at 50 grand and go up from there" models you read about. They are going to have affordable electric cars out sooner than most other nations efforts, and will be able to stomp on prices. The only other company in the running now (of the majors) for real electric vehicles is Renault/Nissan with their tie in to the Better Place project, which is developing the whole EV stack, vehicles plus charging stations plus battery pack swapout stations. They are planning on using the subsidized cellphone and plan model for this. You'll get the vehicle cheaper upfront, and buy the electricity from them with some dedicated charging card. All the other electric vehicle makers are niche and boutique makers, all with high prices and very limited production runs, like Tesla.
Re:You mean redirect the funds. (Score:3, Informative)
There is a rather large difference between letting market forces have their way with oil prices, and actively banning marijuana or profanity
But the poster clearly stated that he would rather the increase be because of taxes, something that the government does, rather then natural market forces.
Re:start building nuclear plants NOW (Score:5, Informative)
B) Chernoby was so completely different from any reactor the US has ever implemented (including the lack of a containment dome) it is just pure FUD to even bring it up.
C) Recycling the so called waste will yield a sizeable amount of fuel and the remaining short lived waste could be stored in the mines the uranium ore came out of in the first place.
D) See C combined with: I thought the idea was to get away from coal?
Oh, and to E from the AC: Actually, we have about a few thousand year supply of Uranium in the US alone (Virginia) and that does not include sea water extraction. Breeder reactors also allow the production of more fuel. It is either a renewable or going to last so long that fusion will come about before we run out.
Re:Brilliant (Score:3, Informative)
1) Laptop batteries != EV batteries. Except in the case of Tesla; they're kind of doing their own thing, different from pretty much everyone else.
2) Despite the common notion, batteries are just one aspect of EV technology that's undergone major advancement. Just to pick a random example: IGBTs.
3) Fuel cell vehicles, while technically "electric", are traditionally abbreviated FCV.
Re:You mean redirect the funds. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anyone else notice this part? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You mean redirect the funds. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No New Infrastructure Needed (Score:4, Informative)
And the fact that you can build the equivalent of those big-company factory cars in your garage and achieve fairly similar performance and practicality says a lot about how hard building one of these cars is NOT.
Re:Brilliant (Score:4, Informative)
Re:You mean redirect the funds. (Score:1, Informative)
Are these "gasoline fuel cells" actually different, or do they just come with a converter that cracks the hydrogen off the carbon atoms before use? Hydrogen fuel cells are still butt-hurtingly expensive for their low power outputs and short effective lifetimes.
There are carbon fuel cells too, but they produce CO2 and then we are back on the square one.
Cracking hydrogen out of long chain hydrocarbons (or perhaps from fatty acids, or from cellulose), if feasible, is actually a fine idea, because storing and handling hydrogen is more practical if it is chemically bonded instead of cryoliquified. All we need to do after usage is remove sooth (in other words: sequester carbon).
Re:Lighting plants with plant power (Score:3, Informative)
I'm just responding to the obvious thermodynamic problem of using plant-derived power as the power input to plant growth.
However, I never actually suggested such a thing, and it's unclear as to how you could make such an inference without going into it assuming that I'm a total fuckhead. That's your prerogative, but history doesn't really support you. (If it required believing I was a complete asshole I might have some sympathy for you.) I said "use our extra power", not "use the additional power produced". I propose to burn the biofuels produced from algae in our cars and homes, replacing fossil fuels; not supplementing them by also using these biofuels to run additional power plants.
If we have night-time surplus electricity from something other than wind power or hydro we can't stop because the reservoir will overflow, shut that off too.
Either you're extremely ignorant on the subject of power generation, or you're being deliberately disingenuous. While wind and hydro have fast spin-up times and can be turned on and off more or less at will (although just try doing that all the time with either and see what you come up with) the other forms of power producing at night don't. It can take days to heat up other types of power plants. It's simply not feasible to "turn them off" when they're not being used. This actually raises a point I wasn't even trying to make; If you had a megalithic power plant running on (say) oils extracted from algae, you would still have the same problem with having excess electrical energy available at night, and you'd still have to do something with it.
Possibly a better solution is to simply mandate that people over a certain power consumption have to consume a certain percentage of it at night. A lot of industries could be operating 24x7 at a lower output per unit of time, and still have the same production. They might need multiple shifts, and filling the night shifts would be difficult at first, but over time the situation would improve.
In any case, I never suggested that we grow crops with electric light, and then burn them to produce more light. Again, you have attacked a straw man. I suggest that you go back and reread my comment rather than continuing along these lines.
If I wanted to discredit you, I'd be much more vitriolic.
If I've learned one thing about slashdot, it's that if you want to discredit someone you must either have good citations, or be funny. Vitriol only helps if it is especially clever.