hydrogen
-
Department of Energy flushes $15 million down the hydrogen toilet
There are only three sure things in life — death, taxes, and you won’t be buying a hydrogen fuel cell car. Sadly, the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has not gotten any of the memos (see “Some clarity on the Clarity” and “This just in: Hydrogen fuel cell cars […]
-
Fleet of hydrogen concept vehicles crosses U.S. as part of Hydrogen Road Tour
The BMW Hydrogen 7 “stores its hydrogen as a super-cold liquid and burns it in a V-12 piston engine; BMW claims that the exhaust from the Hydrogen 7 is actually cleaner than the ambient air,” says The New York Times’ Wheels blog. Dan Riehl. A parade of hydrogen concept vehicles is undertaking a two-week sweep […]
-
‘Major discovery’ from MIT unpractical, and ignores present advances in solar baseload
I have gotten bombarded by too many people asking me if the story headlined above is true. It isn't. Not even close.
Science magazine, which published the supposedly "major discovery" by MIT's Daniel Nocera, headlined their story, "New Catalyst Marks Major Step in the March Toward Hydrogen Fuel" ($ub. req'd). Doh! But who needs a major step towards hydrogen?
And Science seems to be having problems with the laws of physics, as we'll see. I thought I had explained this to Scientific American, but given their puff piece -- the findings "help pave the way for a future hydrogen economy" -- I obviously failed. Let me try again.
MIT had the sexier headline on unleashing the solar revolution. Too bad that headline isn't accurate for two mains reasons: The solar revolution already has been unleashed, and if it hadn't been, this technology wouldn't do the trick even if were near commercial, which it isn't. MIT reports:
-
Technophile mag spouts climate-tech nonsense
Wired magazine used to be the place to go for the latest in technology. But now it covers any sexy techy idea, no matter how impractical.
Given that we all have limited time, Wired should be off every technophile's must-read list and replaced by Technology Review, which has revamped its stodgy old self and become what once Wired aspired to be.
For me, this started with the absurd cover story by Peter Schwartz 5 years ago, "How Hydrogen Can Save America," which claimed "What we need is a massive, Apollo-scale effort [$100 billion over ten years] to unlock the potential of hydrogen, a virtually unlimited source of power." Uhh, no. Hydrogen is an energy carrier, not a source -- except for the sun, of course, and if we really want to harness its power we should be placing big bets on solar energy. Try instead my Technology Review piece "Some clarity on the Clarity."
Recently Wired published their most misinformed piece, "Inconvenient Truths: Get Ready to Rethink What It Means to Be Green." RealClimate beat me to the punch debunking Wired's bizarre analyses in favor of using air-conditioning and against protecting old-growth forests or buying a Prius. They didn't debunk Wired's claim, "Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy," perhaps because it is so obviously absurd (see Nukes of hazard).
-
Years after everyone else, GM and Toyota execs skeptical about hydrogen cars
That Saturday Night Live-esque headline was inspired by a story in The Wall Street Journal yesterday:
Top executives from General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. Tuesday expressed doubts about the viability of hydrogen fuel cells for mass-market production in the near term and suggested their companies are now betting that electric cars will prove to be a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale.
Really? Hydrogen cars of dubious viability? Who ever could have guessed that in a million years? And electric cars are "a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale"? I'm shocked, shocked that anyone could come to that conclusion.
-
Full-cell company bought by Daimler and Ford
Ballard -- the Canadian fuel-cell company that once hoped to be the "Intel Inside of the hydrogen car revolution -- has sold off its automotive fuel-cell business to Daimler and Ford.
You can listen to a good CBC radio story on it, which includes an interview of me (click on "Listen to the Current," Part 2). You can read Toronto Star columnist Tyler Hamilton on the story here. A Financial Post post piece headlines the story bluntly: "Hydrogen highway hits dead end: Ballard's talks with potential buyers is admission that dream of hydrogen fuel car is dead: analyst."
The story has a keen interpretation of the sale's meaning from Research Capital analyst Jon Hykawy:
-
Expensive coal + hydrogen = ?
As follow-up to my post yesterday: There is now a bidding war emerging for the FutureGen clean coal plant, targeted to cost $6500/kW. Texas and Illinois are fighting to win this fantastic prize. If they get it, they'll ensure they can keep burning coal, but will do it in a plant that is absurdly expensive.
As a fringe benefit, they'll generate hydrogen (aka, a fuel that no one is presently demanding for their vehicles), on the off chance that if a market arises they can sell it. Goodness knows they'll need it if the coal plant is ever going to pencil out.
Presumably, this is a better idea than investing in more cost-effective renewable/cogen/efficiency projects that would actually produce a product people want.
See an article from Restructuring Today, "Illinois works hard to win FutureGen clean coal/hydrogen plant" ($ub req'd), below the fold:
-
Expensive coal + hydrogen = ?
As follow-up to my post yesterday: There is now a bidding war emerging for the FutureGen clean coal plant, targeted to cost $6500/kW. Texas and Illinois are fighting to win this fantastic prize. If they get it, they'll ensure they can keep burning coal, but will do it in a plant that is absurdly expensive.
As a fringe benefit, they'll generate hydrogen (aka, a fuel that no one is presently demanding for their vehicles), on the off chance that if a market arises they can sell it. Goodness knows they'll need it if the coal plant is ever going to pencil out.
Presumably, this is a better idea than investing in more cost-effective renewable/cogen/efficiency projects that would actually produce a product people want.
See an article from Restructuring Today, "Illinois works hard to win FutureGen clean coal/hydrogen plant" ($ub req'd), below the fold:
-
Abandoning the solution
After the introduction and an explanation of "The Coming Oil Crisis," the next part of "MidEast Oil Forever?" (subs. req'd) begins the discussion of the technology-based solution -- and how the Congress is working to block it. Yes, long before Shellenberger & Nordhaus claim to have pioneered the positive technology message that everyone else supposedly never tried, many of us were waging a public death-match (without their help) to save those technologies -- especially since the Gingrich Congress was dead set against a regulatory approach, such as tougher fuel economy standards.
Even back in 1996, we understood the promise of cellulosic ethanol and hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles -- though after years of trying, we could never get Detroit to give them any more than lip service. Back in the mid-1990s, I still had some optimism for hydrogen fuel cell cars -- but the inability to make key breakthroughs over the past 10 years, and the realities of the alternative fuels market, have since persuaded me it is a dead end, especially from the perspective of global warming.
Here is what we wrote: