House Resources chaiman calls hydrogen cars "bullshit."

[YEM]

Our lawmakers hard at work! How is our country so hoodwinked?? This is funny shit. Check out what he tells the crowd at the end of the article.


House Resources chairman disses key provision of energy bill

From Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Shortly before the House began debate Wednesday on an energy bill aimed primarily at making the country less dependent on overseas oil, a House committee chairman involved in the legislation bluntly dismissed a key provision to boost the use of hydrogen fuels.

House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-California, a key proponent of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, whispered, "This is bulls--t," to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt as the two men stood listening to Rep. John Doolittle, R-California, talk about the benefits of hydrogen fuel at a crowded Capitol Hill news conference.

The remark, which was meant to be private, was overheard by a CNN reporter standing next to Blunt.

After the event, CNN asked Pombo why he made the off-message comment about the $2 billion alternative vehicle program proposed by President Bush and backed by the Republican congressional leadership.

"It's not a short-term solution because we just don't have the technology to produce it," he said, adding that the promised hydrogen-powered vehicles are "multimillion-dollar prototypes that nobody's going to buy."

He said, "They're just not done economically that the average person can afford them. Hopefully, if this stuff all works, 10 years from now they'll be able to produce them."

In the comments that drew Pombo's whispered comment, Doolittle said the alternative vehicle program would "turbocharge" development of pollution-free hydrogen vehicles in the United States.

"The goal is to have hydrogen vehicles on our roads by 2020," Doolittle said enthusiastically. "We presently have the technology. It's not decades away, it's not five years from now. Hydrogen fuel cells exist now."

Pombo said afterward that despite his dismissive comment he thinks it's important the hydrogen technology gets funded in the bill, which is expected to pass the House Thursday before going to the Senate where it faces an uncertain future.

"Long term it's good energy policy, but this is something that's out 10 years from now,' he said.

A White House communications aide agreed, saying hydrogen-powered cars are part of the administration's long-term energy strategy. Dana Perino noted that when Bush first proposed the hydrogen program in January 2003, he said his goal was that the first car that a child born at that time would drive would be powered by hydrogen.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman also spoke at the news conference.

Ironically, Pombo, whose turn to speak at the event came right after Doolittle, opened his comments by saying last year he had a hydrogen-powered vehicle on his ranch.

"It was a lot of fun," he said.

[mmonk]

1. Nothing like speaking one's mind.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Hey dumbass, regular cars were once unaffordable too.

Every technology is too expensive at first, but by making more and more and learning easier processes, the technology becomes affordable soon enough.

[YEM]

3. So is he basically acknowledging that...

Bush is full of shit and doesn't plan on doing a thing for alternative fuel?

[Igel]

6. It depends if you think he's right or not.

The program advances the use of alternative fuel ... in a limited and specific way: the use of H2. But that's not a primary energy source.

Until they work it out, I personally consider the H2 program to be borderline pork. It'll cut down on pollution (locally, at least), but I don't know that it's even more efficient than the current gasoline-based transportation model. And it depends on what the primary energy source is: they can use natural gas, hydroelectric, or nuclear sources for the energy, but will they?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Again, you're looking at the beginning of a technology.

You're trying to compare the efficiency of a system we've refined for over a hundred years to a brand new process. Of course the gasoline-based model is going to be better right now. But unless we persist in working on an alternative source, we're never going to reach the point where H2 reaches its potential.

[midnight armadillo]

4. Well, he's right!

Hydrogen is a red herring. It will have uses in fuel cells, for example it's used as an energy storage medium in a wind turbine demonstration project in Norway - when the wind doesn't blow, a fuel cell produces electricity off the hydrogen produced by excess wind-generated power.

As for vehicles...it's hard to store, hard to transport, and you need either massive amounts of fossil fuels, hundreds of nuke plants, or a mix of the two to produce enough if we were to replace our gas cars w/ hydrogen fuel cells. Plus there's no infrastructure to dispense it.

Hydrogen is intended as a massive subsidy to the fossil fuel companies. Don't buy the hype.

[BeFree]

5. File this one

these statements oughtta be archived in Demopedia, eh?

Significant that Pombo spoke so eloquently about a brother Republican.

But at least they are finally talking about the real security of America; Cheap and abundant energy.

[Kolesar]

7. dupe of cnn article

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1412327

[MadHound]

8. Wow, a republican speaking the truth, amazing

Pombo is spot on with this remark. Hydrogen technology is at least ten years away, more like twenty. Not only is there the car tech to think about, but a complete overhaul of the nations fueling infrastructure to contemplate also. In addition, making this energy source safe is going to be a huge problem, otherwise you'll have ordinary fender benders turning into flaming infernoes. Not a good thing.

Bush tossed this bone out there to make himself look good. It is something that he can point to and claim that he is trying to be the ecological president. However, it is such pie in the sky thinking that his backing of this POS won't threaten his real interests, squeezing the last bit of oil out of the earch to be exploited by his corporate masters.

Rather than this fantasy of alternative fuel, let's go with something that is real and attainable now. Say a hybrid diesel, with a spare battery pack that can be charged at home by tapping into the windmill grid. Thus, you could be using biodiesel and wind energy in tandem, and supply all of our energy needs. A 1991 DOE study of wind resources stated that the US has enough harvestable wind energy in North Dakota, South Dakota and Texas to supply all of our electrical needs through 2030. Biodiesel is a viable fuel alternative. Combine them together in a hyrbrid and you have a vehicle that can be produced now that is 100% alternative fueled, with very little pollution. And it is a solution that is obtainable now

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Why not work on both?

We need a long term solution, not a short term fix. I don't think relying on hybrids as the final answer solves the problem, it just slows it down. We need an alternative, and unless you invest those 20 years, you'll never see ANY alternative.

[MadHound]

11. I agree, however

I think that some serious study needs to be done on the desirability of using hydrogen. Where are you going to get the hydrogen? Cracking it out of water is energy intensive, and what are the consequences long term of doing such a thing and taking so much water out of the cycle?

Besides, with a biodiesel hybrid engine, backed up by a grid of wind and solar, we do have a long term solution, one that is attainable now.

[ProfessorGAC]

15. Why The Infernos?

You are aware, i would hope, that the flammablility range of hydrogen (concentration in air) is narrower than that of gasoline. Right?

You also know that if a fender bender ruptures a fuel tank now, the gasoline spills to the ground, increasing the surface area, and thus putting a GREATER area at risk of hitting the LEL. Right?

If a hydrogen storage system ruptures, the excess goes up and dilutes beneath the LEL of H2 in a matter of seconds, ameliorating the risk, not exacerbating it. Right?

Hydrogen is NOT more dangerous than gasoline. This is a technical canard. While the carrying of enough hydrogen to run a car may create logistical concerns, it's not any less safe than gasoline.
The Professor

[MadHound]

16. Umm, I think that technical canard was disproven

By the Hindenberg. Concentration will not disipate enough in the time between tank breech and spark to prevent a fire. Hydrogen is much more volatile than gasoline. Personaly, I think it is asking for trouble, especially because you're going to have to be carrying that hydrogen under pressure.

[ProfessorGAC]

17. Sorry, Hound, But No

If a vehicle that large was filled with gasoline vapors, the conflagration would have been equally severe. The overall energy release of a gram of hydrogen is actually lower than a gram of gasoline. Gas gives off almost 2,200 kJoules per mole upon combustion. With an average molecular weight of around 90g/mole, that comes to about 24 kJ/g. Hydrogen releases 22.2 kJ/g. So, the overall energy release would be nearly identical.

Hydrogen only has a volatility range (lower to upper explosive limit) of a bit broader than 1 - 3.5% in air. Gasoline is from 1.2 - 6.6%. So, the flammability limit is narrower. This makes it less flammable, by DOT definition.

In addition, since gasoline vapors are heavier than air, the dissipation rate of the vapors is reliant on diffusion, solely. Hence the capability of the vapors to create and remain in the flammability range is greater. Hydrogen will rise under it's own motive force due to the density differences.

For every Hindenberg with H2, there's an equally terrifying story.

A refinery about 15 miles (direct line) from where i worked had an explosion back in 1983. The top of the distillation tower (which was the third column, so was about 99% mole fraction gasoline), which weighed nearly 3 tons, ended up in the front yard of a guy almost 2 miles away. That is quite a release in energy. NOne of the high weigh parts of the Hindenberg were launched 2 miles! (The actual conditions of the intial conflagration were different, though.)

It's simply not true that hydrogen is more volatile, in any other definition than it's boiling point. It has higher vapor pressure because of that, which means storage needs to be at pressure. (We both mentioned that, and we agree completely.)

But, in terms of total energy, flammability range, and capability to mitigate, hydrogen is not any more dangerous than gasoline, and in some cases less so. I think one of the technical disconnects is that we've become so accustomed to the use of gasoline, that it's easy to forget just how dangerous it could be. Sort of a complacency thing, since we all use it every day.

But, from a purely technical perspective, dealing with hydrogen is not more dangerous than dealing with gasoline.
The Professor

[greenman3610]

19. no one died in the Hindenburg. Look it up.

the pictures look graphic, but as an ex paramedic,
I can tell you that the hazards of gasoline
at least equal, if not outweigh any hazard from
hydrogen.

[LynneSin]

12. I know this isn't bullshit and here's why

Back in 2001, I did a few 1-day stints for my contracting company at a place called Millennium Cell (based in NJ). Their whole technology is based on Hydrogren Fuel Cells and they actually had 2 company vehicles that ran on Fuel Cell technology: A Ford Explorer and a Lincoln Continental.

The technology is there, the cost efficiency isn't.

But this could be done, especially focusing on Urban Areas where there is an over-abundance of cars clogging the highways. Outside of cost, the other hold back is the availabity of refilling stations which could proove to be a problem in the rural areas. But imagine if we required all public transportation in Urban areas (including Taxis) to switch to Hydrogen technologies. Buses and Taxis all have their own filling stations, which they could convert/add to Hydrogen. We'd grandfather the clause in so that current gas vehicles would still be re-used but when they are replaced they need to go to new technology. This process could cut back in tons of unnecessary pollutants being pumped into our atmosphere, plus the savings in gas costs would not only offset current gas prices BUT help keep costs low for customers.

This is a great plan - too bad our government won't do anything to help!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. And cost efficiency will be gained over time.

Remember when the PC was too expensive for the average consumer?

Technology will advance to the point where it's no longer prohibitively expensive if you let it grow and continue.

[patcox2]

21. Hey lynn, whence the energy to make the hydrogen?

Hydrogen is a great energy storage device. But how does it solve anything without a source for the energy to create the hydrogen?

Long range what you will see is coal and nuclear power plants bult for the purpose of making the hydrogen for these precious, supposedly "clean" fuel cell cars. Its just outsourcing the pollution, not eliminating it.

It solves a political, global strategic problem in that if our cars ran on the hydrogen, we would not need foreign oil, we would not have to invade foreign countries on pretext, and we would not be in the desperate struggle for diminishing supplies as oil is used up.

Thats a good thing, I guess.

But we'd have to build an enormous number of additional power plants to make the hydrogen, absolutely enormous. Wind, solar, whatever, but I would bet you'll seee nuclear coming back in the near futurs, and we have inexhaustible supplies of coal just waiting to be burned.

[magellan]

14. Even as a future alternative, it's trading some problems for others

Read this article from Popular Science, which lists "nine myths and misconceptions, and the truth about why hydrogen-powered cars aren’t just around the corner": Warning: The Hydrogen Economy May Be More Distant Than It Appears

[Moderator]

18. YEM

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted new source
and provide a link to
the source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

[hunter]

20. It is Bullshit. It is a great smothering pile of Bullshit.

This is Dick Cheney in his underwear saying, "Hey little boy, want some candy?" kind of bullshit.

I know a lot of engineers sincerely believe that good things will result from these developing hydrogen technologies, but in this case it is very wise to examine the motives of the patrons.

Don't let them take you into the bedroom, and whatever you do, don't let them have your patents.