Manufacturer spotlight: Infiniti

Poll

Vote for your most highly anticipated new green car coming to the UK in 2012

  • View Results
Subscribe to RSS feed. Sign up for our newsletter

Awards won by TheGreenCarWebsite.co.uk

The Green Apple Awards 2011 GreenFleet Award

Information

Archive

California Air Resources Board wants fuel cell funding

The ’s 2010 Department of Energy budget put forward a cut in the federal hydrogen research and deployment by more than two thirds ($130million). However, Chairman wants that funding back.

She met with US Energy Secretary and followed that meeting with a letter urging the continuation of funding to support research, development and deployment of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. This is despite the fact that Chu, in an interview with MIT Technology Review, stated that “four miracles” would be required for fuel cells to become viable: relating to their durability and cost; production; storage; and distribution infrastructure.

According to the Air Resources Board analysis, most vehicles on the road in 2050 will need to be electric drive or ultra-low carbon fuel vehicles – that is electricity or hydrogen – if the 80 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases is to be achieved.

That prompted Nichols to attach a summary of how each of the “four miracles” could be met:

Cost - She outlined that durability has improved and costs reduced through research and development. Fuel cell vehicles are expected to be cost competitive with other advanced technologies and are approaching the cost of advanced hybrids even with current designs.

Production – A well-to-wheels analysis by the Department of Energy found that using hydrogen from natural gas would mean the emission of 63 per cent fewer greenhouse gases than today’s petrol vehicles and 37 per cent fewer than natural gas vehicles.

Storage - There are already 140 fuel cell vehicles that have accumulated more than 85,000 hours of operation and 1.9 million miles in real world testing.

Infrastructure – The letter outlined that when produced in high volume, hydrogen can be made efficiently from a number of feedstocks including natural gas, biomass and coal. The National Research Council has estimated it would cost $2.2million to build a hydrogen fuelling station that could support 1,500 FCVs – the equivalent of $1,500 per vehicle. Meanwhile, according to an Idaho National Laboratory estimate, the average cost of a 240V circuit needed for a PHEV-30 or PHEV-40 would be $1,500-$2,100.

We want to know your views on this issue. Should more money be invested into hydrogen fuel cell vehicles or was the US Government right to cut its funding? Leave a comment below with your thoughts.

See also

Author: Paul Lucas, June 21, 2009
Filed under: Fuel Cells,Green cars,Hydrogen fuel,Latest news

3 Comments »

A random “Smog Check” inspection & repair “secret shopper”, ethanol cap and elimination of dual fuel CAFE credit can cut California car impact over 50% in 2010. (Prevent Over 2000 tons per day of sulfur, HC, NOx & CO2.) Improved performance of AB32 at reduced cost. (support H.R. 1207)

Comment by Charlie Peters — June 21, 2009 @ 5:20 am

This is just shortsighted and not really based on all the true facts. While I agree that fuel cells for auto’s may be off in the future, without continued funding the future will happen somewhere else, not here in the US.

The more important issue though is to understand thought that fuel cells do have a huge role to play in our quest for renewable power and for smart grid enhancement. There are already today commercially viable fuel cells available which we are implementing into facilities to generate power on a commercial scale. These fuel cells are highly efficient, virtually no emission devices which can be fueled by virtually any gaseous fuel, not just hydrogen. Thus the infrastructure is in place to utilize them. I have been personnally responsible for installing several megawatts of renewable anaerobic digester gas fueled fuel cells in california over the last two years and am working to install many more megawatts now.

Funding needs to continue. We need more choices, more sizes, and ultimately higher efficiency if we are to eliminate coal and other highly polluting equipment from our landscape and without basic funding this will not happen.

Tom Mossinger
Associate
Carollo Engineers

Comment by Tom Mossinger — June 21, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

Bush supported Fuel Cells and canceeled the coal gasifiction project in Ill because at best it would take 1.5 units of energy for every unit gotten from gasified coal.

Sen Durbin from Ill was incensed over the cancellation of the project in Ill. So the fuel cell effort had to be reduced in order to re-start the coal gasification project in Ill. WGN Chicago reported the other day that the coal gasification project had been restarted in Ill. So polictics won again over rational science.

Comment by Neil Lindsay — June 21, 2009 @ 8:06 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Popular posts

Image: Biofuels: the pros and cons
Image: Hybrid cars: a guide
Image: LPG conversion: a helpful guide
The Green Piece
Available UK charge points for electric vehicles