Uncategorized

L.A. Times: ‘Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won’t work in cars’

"Honda's striking, amazing hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle may be the most expensive, advanced and impractical car ever built."

So writes Dan Neil, the L. A. Times car guy in "Honda FCX Clarity: Beauty for beauty's sake" (see here, vehicle details here).

You will never buy a hydrogen car. And I say that mostly because I know that in the unlikely event a major car company actually ever tries to sell you one, you are just way too smart to bite or even nibble. And I say that not because you read ClimateProgress, but because you are breathing at all. Hydrogen cars are simply too impractical.

It is time for President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu to drastically scale back the federal hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle program, to a small basic research program focused on long-term breakthroughs in hydrogen storage, fuel cells, and renewable hydrogen. This could free up some $1 billion in Obama's first term alone for more important R&D and more urgent deployment efforts (see here).

The hydrogen emperor has no clothes. This isn't news overseas (see here). Nor is it news that the Honda FCX is a lemon, tangible proof of the futility of pursuing the commercialization of hydrogen cars (see here).

But it is a big deal to see the car guy of the L.A. Times -- in the home state of many of the last remaining hydrogen diehards, the state that had until recently seriously entertained building a "hydrogen highway" -- dismantle the vehicle in his review, so I'll reprint it below:

AAAS: Climate change is coming much harder, much faster than predicted

The American Association for the Advancement of Science is holding its annual meeting, so you can expect a flurry of climate announcements -- though not as much as at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union (see here and here). The Washington Post and AFP are reporting:

It seems the dire warnings about the oncoming devastation wrought by global warming were not dire enough, a top climate scientist warned Saturday.

Okay, this is what I've been saying for a few years now, but it's good to hear more and more leading climate scientists besides James Hansen and John Holdren being blunt with the public on this (see links below for others who are now telling it like it is). In this case, it's Christopher Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University, who said

We are basically looking now at a future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations.

The source of Field's concern -- what else could it be but our old nemesis, amplifying carbon cycle feedbacks:

The case for small-scale fishing communities

Over on the Foreign Policy website, Daniel Pauly of The Sea Around Us Project has an excellent set of info graphics on the dismal state of the globe's fisheries. 

The whole thing should be studied and gaped at by anyone who values the oceans as living ecosystems. You should know, for example, if you don't already, that the world's appetite for sushi has driven three species of bluefin tuna to "near extinction," and that it will take decades to revive them -- if and only if we "stop eating them now."

But what really reeled me in (sorry, everyone) was the comparison between small-scale and large-scale fishing operations. Turns out that small operations are actually much more efficient. Key fact:

WaPo lets Will off, lectures Boxer on climate change

The Washington Post editorial board, which just this weekend elected to run a column from George Will denying climate change entirely, now presumes to lecture Barbara Boxer on how to solve it.

It's amazing how long people like this have ruled our national discourse.

Big Coal's new campaign: choose us, not jobs and health

It was not so long ago that the coal industry could just issue propaganda without reference to coal's problems. Coal was "reliable, affordable, and increasingly clean" and it powered green, useful things like Washington, D.C.'s Metro system.

So imagine my glee when I woke up this morning and pulled the latest Southern Company insert from my morning newspaper. Here it is:

I think the androgynous yuppie happily contemplating the radioactive turd is supposed to convince us that said turd is actually a piece of coal that has been magically "greened."

I was smiling, of course, not because this insert represented a new, revolting low in graphic arts, but because Southern Company now feels compelled to fight not so much for the ability to build new coal-fired power plants, but for survival.

Investors will figure out that coal is growing scarce and too expensive

The following is a guest essay by Tom Konrad, a financial analyst specializing in renewable energy and energy efficiency companies, a freelance writer, and a contributor to AltEnergyStocks.com.

-----

A couple years ago, I began to see reports that coal supplies might not last the 200-plus years we've all been lead to believe, so I wrote an article about what you could do to prepare your portfolio for Peak Coal.

Now two years have passed, and peak coal is undeniably two years closer. (Ever wonder why people who have been saying that we have 200 years of coal for 20 years aren't now talking about 180 years of coal?) But more than being two years closer, the evidence continues to mount. Caltech Professor David Rutledge has been spreading the peak coal word for most of the time since. I recommend the video of his 2007 lecture on the subject.

It's great that the New York Times is asking "Is America Ready to Quit Coal?" but the real question may be "Will we have any choice?"

On February 12, Clean Energy Action released a report on Powder River Basin coal supplies, based in part on a 2008 U.S. Geological Survey report. The Powder River Basin matters because Western coal has been the only source of new coal production in the U.S. for the last two decades. Appalachian and interior coal production has been declining, despite mostly increasing prices and uniformly increasing prices since 2003. Northern Appalachian coal production peaked in the middle of the last century, while interior coal production peaked at the start of this decade. When production declines in the face of rising prices, constraints other than economics must be coming into play. Future increases in production in these regions seems unlikely.

A price signal in the vehicle market is best applied to the vehicle

Proponents of raising the gas tax -- and the chattering class is littered with them these days -- have a simple, central argument: gas taxes create a market signal that pushes all vehicle consumers in the direction of fuel efficiency.

Indeed, some conservatives (and car companies) go further: they say that CAFE standards are bad policy because they force automakers to create products for which there's no demand. It's no good making fuel-efficient cars if nobody wants to buy them! (Americans love big, powerful cars. "Everybody knows" that.) Higher gas taxes should replace CAFE, because they create create demand instead of forcing supply.

A moment's thought reveals a serious flaw in these arguments. Fuel costs are a relatively low portion of total vehicle costs -- maybe 10-20 percent. There's maintenance, insurance, parking, but most of all, the price of the car.

And when the time comes to buy a car, people don't behave like the rational interest maximizers of economic myth. They rarely calculate out future costs like fuel. They consider the number on the price tag in front of them: the price of the car.

It follows that if you want a market signal, you should put it where it will have the most effect: on the price of the car.

As it happens, we have a policy like that! Let's hand the mic to John Heywood, who has headed the Sloan Automotive Laboratory since 1972:

I think we need a purchase tax, a feebate system, like the French have instituted fairly recently. Fees for high-consuming vehicles and rebates for low-consuming vehicles. That will help reinforce consumer response to CAFE requirements by providing a market incentive.

There you go. A clear price signal, applied at the point of maximum effect, supplementing rather than replacing fuel efficiency standards. CAFE standards push automakers to make fuel-efficient cars; feebates push consumers to buy them. (Oh, and unlike gas taxes, feebates aren't regressive.)

How is this not a preferable policy, both economically and politically? What am I missing?

Attack of the zombies: global cooling!

John Fleck comments on George Will's latest zombie attack: in the 1970s, scientists said the Earth was cooling!

What's amazing is not that George Will is selectively quoting to mislead the reader, but that he continues to do so after John sent him a copy of the article in question:

When George Will last wrote about this subject, last May, I sent him a copy of the Science News article he misleadingly quoted in the example I used above. I got a nice note back from him thanking me for sharing it.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide what this reveals about George Will's journalistic integrity.

I can sense some frustration from Fleck that this argument lives on despite the publication of his nice BAMS article that lays out the actual history of the argument, and which clearly shows it to be false.

All I can say is: Welcome to the club, John.

Freaky

World carbon dioxide levels jump 2.3 ppm in 2008 to highest in 650,000 years

NOAA's Global Monitoring Division reports that global concentrations of the primary heat-trapping greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, jumped 2.28 ppm in 2008.

A study in Science from the Global Carbon Project (see "More on soaring carbon concentrations") noted: