February 25, 2004
HYWAY:
Governor's 'hydrogen highway' realistic by 2010, official says (DON THOMPSON, 2/25/04, Associated Press)
Schwarzenegger's proposed network amounts to about 200 fueling stations, a fraction of California's 10,000 retail gasoline stations, Tamminen said.Twenty-five of those stations will soon be available, and Tamminen projected more can be built by universities, waste conversion stations and automakers at little cost to the state. If California can win $20 million to $30 million of the $1.7 billion President Bush promised for hydrogen research, Tamminen said the combination will pay most of the estimated $100 million cost of Schwarzenegger's proposal.
Even if those stations serve a million hydrogen vehicles, he acknowledged they alone won't make a significant dent in the air pollution caused by the projected 30 million vehicles that will crowd California highways by 2010.
But it's a good step, Tamminen said, along with more mass transit and retiring the heaviest polluting diesel and gas-powered engines.
"California is uniquely positioned to be a national leader in the hydrogen revolution," urged Dan Sperling, director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Davis, because of its existing edge in technology and experts. "California needs to think big here."
The reality is that the California market is so big that, if the state pushes this, industry will race to keep up. Posted by Orrin Judd at February 25, 2004 10:52 PM
...which would be a mad dash to nothing. Hydrogen in a pure state costs more to produce than it is feasible to market (as a fuel source for automobiles). It's sorta like the wind- and solar-power debacle. Both of those technologies may someday be viable, but they aren't at this time. Regarless of what the enviroNazis promote, there ain't no free lunch. For wind power, there are dead birds, storage problems, and low-freqs driving people into depression and psychosis. For solar, it is a great idea, but too expensive to implement. For hydrogen, it's the fact that electricity must be generated to produce that fuel, which will most likely entail the burning of coal. Scrubbers and other end-of-pipe controls are better than they were a mere 10 years ago, but it's delusional to think that hydrogen-powered transportation is "pollution-free" just because there aren't NOx and SOx and CO2 gushing out of a tailpipe.
Posted by: skh at February 25, 2004 11:39 PMskh:
Yes, but pollution isn't the point--reducing our dependence on the oil states is.
Posted by: oj at February 25, 2004 11:44 PMShoot, then, just convert to Stanley Steamers. Great cars, and quiet, which is a really neat bonus.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 25, 2004 11:49 PMHarry:
Now you're singin' my song--backwards is real progress.
Posted by: oj at February 25, 2004 11:54 PMUntil and unless we use nuclear (or solar) power to generate our electricity, hydrogen is a dirty fuel. It is merely an energy storage medium, with current technology. Like the "Zero Emissions" requirement that is in California law, hydrogen, and, for that matter, stored electric, is the cause of even more pollution than gasoline.
As I said last week (second post down) even with the latest technological advances, we are a long way from the ability to use hydrogen as more than an example of what is possible, once the problem of producing energy in a clean and inexpensive way is solved.
Posted by: Michael Gersh at February 26, 2004 12:29 AMThe cure for hydrogen's greater cost is mass production.
Hybrid autos cost more to produce than regular vehicles, but Toyota is claiming that they're already making money on every hybrid they sell.
So too will hydrogen-powered vehicles eventually be as cheap, or cheaper, to own and operate than gasoline powered vehicles. GM, the largest auto manufacturer in the world, has already bet its future on hydrogen.
For some intriguing looks at potential future energy trends, check out Shell Oil Co's scenarios.
Posted by: Timothy at February 26, 2004 12:56 PMI am so old that I remember when GM paid $50 million (back when that was serious money) for the rights to the Wankel engine.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 26, 2004 7:44 PMGoes, hmmmmmmmmmmm
Posted by: oj at February 26, 2004 9:37 PMMazda's RX-8 has a Wankel engine.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at February 27, 2004 1:48 AMAnd GM's return from that would be?
My point was that prognositications from Detroit are no better than from anywhere else, and maybe on average a good deal worse.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at February 27, 2004 2:05 PMHarry:
I don't disagree about the quality of Detroit's decisions, especially GM's.
However, they're betting big enough on hydrogen that it'll have extremely serious consequences for the company if they're wrong.
They believe.