Congress Goes Where Administration Won't; Aims To Restore Hydrogen R&D Funding
By John O'Dell July 8, 2009
In an unusual turn of events, Congress (or at least congressional appropriations committees) is showing more common sense than the White House.
In reviewing the administration's funding requests for the Department of Energy's budget, the House Appropriations Committee has restored $40 million in R&D funding for automotive hydrogen fuel cell technology that Energy Secretary Steven Chu's budget proposal had eliminated.
And the Senate Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee has said it wants to see the hydrogen and fuel cell research portion of the DOE's budget increased to $190 billion from the $68 million in Chu's budget proposal.
The Senate subcommittee hasn't provided a breakdown of what it wants the additional funding used for, but it is likely that much of it would go for automotive programs.
Chu, you'll recall, eliminated $100 million in funding for automotive-related hydrogen and fuel cell research from his 2010 budget request, remarking that he and his advisors didn't see fuel cell vehicles as a viable transportation alternative in the next decade or so.
By so doing, he essentially picked battery-electric transportation as the "winner" in the effort to find replacements for petroleum-burning engines for the cars and trucks of the future.
But Chu, who said that the lack of a hydrogen fueling infrastructure was a big stumbling block for electrics, forgot (or ignored) battery-electric vehicles' need for a national network of fast-charging stations if they are ever to become more than commuter and city cars relegated to the second slot in the garage.
His recommendation that the budget eliminate automotive-related fuel cell and hydrogen research funding would have left the U.S. trailing well behind the Japanese (and doesn't that sound like a familiar tune) a decade down the road when their ongoing fuel cell R&D -- firmly supported by the government -- results in a generation of Japanese cars that can travel great distances with no emissions and no need to stop and plug in.
We're not anti-battery, mind you.
We think both technologies, when coupled with a plentiful supply of clean energy to fuel generating plants and hydrogen refineries, will be necessary parts of a transportation future that is no longer dependant on oil.
We just think it is far too soon to pick a winner, as Chu -- no doubt anxious to fulfill President Obama's campaign call to place a million plug-in cars on the road by 2015 -- would do with his DOE budget proposal's erasure of funding for hydrogen programs for automotive applications.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, the North Dakota Democrat who supports hydrogen and heads the Senate energy appropriations subcommittee, said of its decision to restore the fuel cell funding that "most of what we do is not spending...it's investing in the future."
Vehicles that run on hydrogen fuel cells will be important in the future, he said, and to abandon the 189 hydrogen projects that Chu's suggested budget cuts would have eliminated "does not serve our interest well."
He recently called Chu's rationale for the budget cuts "short-sighted."
We agree, and we hope the rest of the Congress does, too -- the committee's recommendations still must be approved by a full vote of both houses.
John O'Dell, Senior Editor
LEAVE A COMMENT
Click here to comment on this entry."We're not anti battery, mind you."
That's laughable. If you blew anymore hydrogen up your ass you'd float away.
Nasty! Being supportive of hydrogen doens't make one anti battery. Nor does pointing out what we see as the problems battery technogy faces. I think if you read the blog you'll find us overall to be pro- electric, in all forms.
Good news! Glad to hear that some in DC realize that consumers should make the choice, not decide for us. We'd be a foolish country to be dependant on one fuel again.
I know hydrogen (like ethanol) gets ripped pretty hard in these and other forums. I've seen lots of arguments both ways and I'm not convinced one way or the other. I suspect it's because we really don't know what the future holds. Until we do, I don't think it's a good idea to eliminate potentially viable possibilities.
The problem is not just with the infra-structure, it's with the fuel cells themselves. Recently Ballard, the world leader in fuel cell research sold off it's automotive division citing too many obstacles with production and costs.
Despite billions of dollars and decades of research, fuel cells still have a long way to go before they will be a main stream production item.
Even if they did work, storing energy as hydrogen and then converting it back into electricity isn't as efficient as just storing the electricity in batteries.
There's only so much taxpayer money to go around. It would be much better for the enviroment to focus it on a technology that works then one that may work someday.
THANK YOU for getting it right. "Being supportive of hydrogen doesn't make one anti battery. Nor does pointing out what we see as the problems battery technology faces." We need electric vehicles of ALL kinds.
@John O'Dell
Nasty! Being supportive of hydrogen doens't make one anti battery. Nor does pointing out what we see as the problems battery technogy faces.
Any problems battery technology faces, they pale in comparison to the problems hydrogen technology faces. I rarely hear you talking about those, unless you believe "funding" solves all problems. My problem with your stance is that you are comparing the two technologies as though they are on equal footing. They are not. We use batteries everyday and we recharge them with the grid. These are technologies that exist, at scale, and are just in need of refinement.
ADD A COMMENT