Energy Secretary's Proposal to Cut Hydrogen Fuel Cell R&D Is A Turn for the Worse

Energy Secretary's Proposal to Cut Hydrogen Fuel Cell R&D Is A Turn for the Worse

By Scott Doggett, Contributor

One week has nearly passed since Energy Secretary Stephen Chu proposed slashing more than $100 million from Uncle Sam's hydrogen research and development program, and all of us should still be mystified and bothered by his proposal.

Chu's rationale for cutting hydrogen funding by 59 percent to just $68 million: It's unlikely that the technology will become significant player during the next two decades.

In other words, Chu's litmus test for funding a technology that might avoid or at least delay the catastrophic effects of global warming is that the technology must be developed within, say, the lifetime of an old house cat.

If Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius applied the same rationale to drug research, she'd propose slashing federal funding for cancer, AIDS and influenza research, because cures for them are probably 20-plus years out. But tossing in the towel on those problems would be nutty, wouldn't it.

And just think where we'd be today if the Wright brothers, Ladislo Biro, Stephen Poplawski, Willis Carrier, Percy Spencer, and the banjo-playing, 3M engineer Richard Drew decided not to invent anything because it'll take too much time. We might never know airplanes, ball-point pens, kitchen blenders, air-conditioning, microwave ovens and, God forbid, Scotch tape.

Other things that took years to invent include: the telephone, the light bulb, the cotton gin, the sewing machine, the personal computer, television, the camera and, lest we forget, the automobile.

Shucks, a whole lot of things that shape the lives we lead today took a long time to develop.

California Dreamin'

As we've reported, California is dreaming of a hydrogen highway. Indeed, it's financially committed to realizing a hydrogen highway, nevermind what Chu thinks, says or does.

But is a world where hydrogen cars zip around, spewing nothing but water vapor, really so far out there that the U.S. should back away from it? Norwegians for one don't think so.

Just last week that cold coastal country of 4.8 million people - whose greatest inventions to date remain Aerosol spray, the cheese slicer and the gas turbine - opened a 347-mile hydrogen highway. That is to say, the descendants of Vikings created a chain of hydrogen-equipped filling stations and other infrastructure along a road that allow hydrogen-powered cars to travel.

And Norway did it with gusto, with more than a dozen hydrogen-powered cars (both vehicles fitted with fuel cells that generate electricity from a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, and vehicles that burn hydrogen in a combustion engine) rallying along a scenic route between Norway's capital city Oslo and its North Sea oil hub Stavanger.

But Norway isn't the only country with a hydrogen highway; it's merely the latest one. Japan has a hydrogen highway, as does Sweden and Denmark. And Canada has committed $200 million toward creation of a hydrogen highway between Vancouver and Whistler, the alpine venue of the 2010 Winter Olympics.

Energy Efficiency

Now it's true that it takes more electricity to reform and compress hydrogen into a user-friendly liquid fuel than to does to simply pump electricity directly into a battery. But a number of studies have shown that a hydrogen fuel-cell electric car is slightly more energy efficient than a battery-electric vehicle overall.

And there's a very practical consideration as well: Unlike battery-electric cars, which can take hours to recharge, the nearly silent hydrogen cars can be refueled in a matter of minutes, much like conventional cars.

There's no denying that the U.S. government often wastes taxpayer dollars on programs that show few results. But hydrogen research hasn't been one of them. Since 2003, DOE-funded research has doubled the lifetime of the fuel cell stack - from 1,000 hours to 2,000 hours - and reduced the projected high-volume cost by 60 percent.

Regardless of whether electricity is used in hydrogen production or to feed batteries, the cars are only as green as the source of the electricity. If it's generated in a coal-fired power plant, neither the hydrogen vehicle or the battery-electric vehicle will be environmentally friendly. The juice must come from renewable sources, such as wind and solar power.

In announcing his proposal to reduce U.S. investment in hydrogen technology, Chu proposed increasing funding for other vehicle technology programs, including rechargeable electric vehicles, lightweight materials and biofuels. We applaud him for boosting American investment in those areas.

Only time will tell if the shift of resources away from hydrogen R&D to EVs and biofuels was wise, but we find it hard to believe that the land of the free, home of the brave is backing away from hydrogen at a time when many less resourceful countries and numerous automakers (Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen and GM among them) are heavily committed to the "futuristic" fuel.

Scott Doggett:  is an AutoObserver.com Associate Editor.