Plug-In Backers Say Recent "Slow Growth" PHEV Report Has Hydrogen Bias
By John O'Dell December 23, 2009
If we were technologically savvy we'd rig this piece to softly play "Why can't we be friends" in the background while you're reading along.
In the aftermath of a report last week by the National Research Council that predicted slow going for plug-in hybrids and battery EVs due to expensive battery costs, among other things, advocates of rechargeable electric vehicles got their knickers in a twist, alleging that the report was biased by its authors' pro-hydrogen leanings an relied on outdated battery cost data.
Indeed, Felix Kramer, founder of the Cal Cars Initiative and a leading proponent of plugging in, points out in a lengthy piece you can read by clicking here that the group charged by the NRC with doing the report was the council's Committee on the Assessment of Resource Needs for Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Technologies.
Seems the committee had completed its hydrogen report - which found that the technology needs government support to move forward - and was asked to stick together and extend its work into a look at the plug-in and battery-electric vehicle field.
It was probably bad judgment on the part of the NRC to have an apparently pro-hydrogen group do the assessment - boosters of the two technologies haven't been able to see eye-to-eye for some time now.
Battery proponents says hydrogen production is too energy intensive to make it a reasonable choice for powering cars and tucks via on-board fuel cells that use H2 to produce electricity.
Hydrogen boosters say that while battery-electric cars are good for short distances, hydrogen fuel cell cars can go anywhere - as long as there's a network of hydrogen fuel pumps to refill their tanks.
Battery backers say 'whoa!' and argue that a national hydrogen fuel infrastructure would cost billions.
Hydrogen advocates say so what; making electric vehicles really useful would require an equally ambitious national network of expensive rapid-charging stations if the cars are ever going to be able to get more than a hundred miles from home. without needing a 4- to 8-hour pit stop for a conventional slow recharge.
And the battle goes on.
We think the real antagonism is based on fear - mainly fear that any research funding that goes to one technology is money lost to the other; but also fear that a favored horse in the race to replace gasoline might be upstaged; even fear of being embarrassed by not being seen as enlightened enough to have been behind the answer to our future fuel problems.
We've made no secret of our position - we like both technologies and see battery-electric cars as the quickest way to start getting us off gas and hydrogen fuel cell cars - which, by the way, are electric cars as well - as a great way to give us long-range electric travel.
We also wouldn't be bothered one bit if someone tomorrow came up with a way to quickly recharge battery-electric cars, eliminating the need for fuel-cell electrics by making BEVs the perfect answer to both short- and long-range travel.
Until then - or until another fuel alternative pops up and makes obsolete both batteries and hydrogen - we think it short-sighted to try to sabotage one for the sake of the other.
Yes, an argument can be made for picking a winner now and pumping into it all of our R&D and incentive money.
But there's an equally strong argument, we believe, in support of the idea that neither technology is perfect yet, and until one proves to be clearly superior, both need to be developed and the "Pick me! No, me!" battling needs to be set aside.
John O'Dell, Senior Editor
LEAVE A COMMENT
As John O'Dell says early on, the critique is not simply about the controversial makeup of the group, but more fundamentally about the underlying data, especially about battery costs and what's practical and achievable in the next decades. Our posting to which he pointed addresses some of these issues, as does the Fact Sheet the Electrification Coalition issued on Monday (see http://www.electrificationcoalition.org/news-response-to-nrc.php ). We're hoping that some of the battery suppliers and auto companies whose products that are about to reach the market in mass-production are already looking better than the long-term projections of the Fuel Cell Committee will also weigh in, and we'll be adding further information next week.
-- Felix Kramer, Founder, The California Cars Initiative (CalCars.org)
It's not really a question of battery backers saying one thing and FCV backers another. This is a question of the reality of physics and economics. Those of us who back the battery side have looked at the physics of using H2 for transportation and it's pretty clear the energy costs are substantial relative to using batteries.
The economics of H2 infrastructure are even worse. If we were so wealthy that we could afford to throw billions at this problem, that would be one thing, but it's clear we don't have the capital for such a waste of funds.
The ONLY reason FCV technology is still in play is because the oil companies have thrown money at certain members of Congress to reinstate funding at the federal level, and a portion of their largess has been thrown at certain people in California whose job it is to vet these technologies dispassionately. The oil companies stand to gain by delaying the battery plug-ins as long as possible, and by some miracle if FCVs infrastructure were to get funded, the oil companies would be the ones selling the H2. Since they are reaping massive profits selling their gas and diesel, I say let them fund this boondoggle.
ADD A COMMENT