Chu Fuel Cell

The U. S. Department of Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize Winner, has on many occasions insinuated that he is a hydrogen hater, by trying to zero out the Federal budget for hydrogen cars. He calls them “impractical” while battery electric cars have gotten his blessing.

As early as May 2011, there were 12 U. S. Senators petitioning Secretary Chu not to zero out the budget for hydrogen cars saying that America for the moment leads in this technology and in manufacturing jobs in this sector. The budget was of course cut, but not zeroed out thanks to the outcry from both Republican and Democratic U. S. Senators.

So, now ½ a year later when holiday cheer and parties are flowing and celebrations are at hand, what does the Energy Secretary do? Well, of course Dr. Chu decides to light his Christmas tree using a fuel cell. Now, there is nothing wrong with this. Former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did this before for several years when he was in charge of such things.

Also in the United Kingdom, the star atop Trafalgar Square’s Christmas tree is also powered by hydrogen fuel cell. The message in and of itself to use green energy to power holiday lights is a sound one. What is not sound, however, is to cut the budget for an emerging technology, then show it off at Christmas time as if you’re a true believer.

I suppose this hypocrisy could have been worse, though. I suppose Dr. Chu could be driving around to his holiday parties in a hydrogen car and then giving out toy RC hydrogen cars to children as gifts this holiday season.

On second thought, though, perhaps I should give Dr. Chu the benefit of the doubt. After all this is the holiday season and the time for second chances. Perhaps Secretary Chu has turned from a hydrogen Grinch into a hydrogen believer due to the magic of Christmas. All you have to do is close your eyes and believe. Believe …

Assembly Bill 118 was unanimously adopted this week and authorized the Energy Commission to “… provide approximately $100 million annually over seven years to encourage new fuels and technologies.”

In addition, “The 2011-2012 plan allocates $100 million to encourage this menu of transportation investments … $8.5 million to support hydrogen fueling stations and to demonstrate fuel cell technology. Fuel cell vehicles are expected to number in the tens of thousands in California after 2015.”

The bill also calls for “$8 million to develop and demonstrate technology that will improve the efficiency of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles. Battery electric applications, hybrid hydraulics, fuel cells and other advanced technology can make these on- and off-road vehicles cleaner and more efficient. Although medium- and heavy-duty vehicles make up only 4 percent of the state’s transportation mix, they account for 16 percent of the state’s petroleum consumption and its greenhouse gas emissions from transportation.”

Here is a PDF document of the entire press release that outlines not only how California will invest specifically in hydrogen cars and infrastructure but also other green car technology as well. And while the naysayers are grumbling that this will hurt the economy the fact is that these measures will create thousands of high paying green jobs, something sorely needed now in the Golden State (and of course other states as well).

Right now if you use TurboTax, a tax accountant or even do your own taxes, on the forms are tax credits that cover alternative fuel vehicles. I’ve even seen hydrogen cars listed on my tax forms even though they aren’t for sale yet.

The way the current tax code reads is that hydrogen cars that are used for transportation down the highways and byways of the U. S. are eligible for sizable tax credits. Senator Schumer wants to amend section 30B of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Alternative Motor Vehicle Credit) to include other types of hydrogen-powered vehicles as well.

The purpose of the amendment is to give tax credits of between $8,000 and $40,000 for buyers of hydrogen forklifts, palette trucks and other off-road H2 powered vehicles. These tax breaks will help to incentivize the market, promoting sales and creating jobs.

If the bill is written correctly this could open the door for tax breaks from all sorts of other vehicles not mentioned in the press release such as hydrogen fuel cell tractors, H2 airplanes, low-speed H2 commuter vehicles, airport baggage handling vehicles and hydrail (hydrogen trains).

The potential for this bill could means accelerated production of all sorts of hydrogen-powered vehicles not intended for highway travel. The result of more hydrogen vehicles of the types listed will be cleaner air, less dependence on foreign energy sources and more domestic jobs.

The fuel cell industry is expected to create 40,000 jobs over the next 10 years and this will be nothing compared to all of the jobs in the supporting industries that will be created in order to manufacture and put these fuel cell vehicles into the market.

If you’d like to contact Senator Schumer showing him your support for his bill you can do so here: http://schumer.senate.gov/

According to the article, “Meanwhile, Iraysa Oviedo Rivero, of Cuba energia Information Management and Energy Development Center, also participating in the Conference, said the negative impact of renewable sources like hydrogen, carbon or biomass is smaller than that caused by the use of fossil fuels.

“Figures provided by CETER indicate that hydrogen has been successfully employed in the transportation of students in the Spanish city of Aragon.”

No matter what you think of the politics of Cuba including the Castro brothers, one thing is for certain and that is that Cuba has its eye on sustainability. In 2006, the World Wildlife Fund (World Wide Fund for Nature) declared that Cuba was the only nation that met its standard for sustainability having a lower ecological footprint per capita than any other nation.

While the U. S. is fumbling and stumbling around when it comes to developing hydrogen infrastructure, now even smaller, hostile nations (to the U. S.) like Cuba and Iran see the wisdom of building hydrogen cars and infrastructure with the goals of developing a sustainable future that is environmentally friendly and free from foreign sources of fossil fuels.

A couple of weeks ago I had talked about how a group of U. S. Senators was revolting against the prospect of the DOE slashing the hydrogen budget by 40-percent. But, one has to wonder, that even if the DOE does have the funds for hydrogen research and development will they make a true effort to put these funds to good use?

The DOE has just implemented a new program called the U.S. DRIVE – Driving Research and Innovation for Vehicle efficiency and Energy sustainability. This program replaces the FreedomCAR and Fuel Partnership program developed under the previous administration.

One of the missions of the old FreedomCAR initiative was to “enable transition to a hydrogen transportation economy.” According to the DOE the new mission is a bit different, “U.S. DRIVE partners work together on an extensive portfolio of advanced automotive and energy infrastructure technologies, including batteries and electric-drive components, advanced combustion engines, lightweight materials, and fuel cells and hydrogen technologies. “

This sounds all well and good. It sounds like hydrogen cars still have a place at the table. But let’s take a closer look at just who is at the table for a second:

The full list of U.S. DRIVE partners includes:

• Auto industry – United States Council for Automotive Research LLC (the collaborative research company for Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors) and Tesla Motors
• Energy industry – BP America, Chevron Corporation, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil Corporation, and Shell Oil Products US
• Electric utility industry – DTE Energy, Southern California Edison, and the Electric Power Research Institute

One of the conspicuous additions to the Auto industry group is Tesla Motors which only produces electric cars. The Energy industry partners were dubious under FreedomCAR and are just as dubious under U. S. Drive in that Big Oil is represented (why?) and hydrogen fuel companies like Air Products and Praxair have at best a place at the children’s table, (downstairs and out of site) or in fact, no place at all.

Also notice all of the companies from the Electric utility industry that are listed. These companies have nothing to do with hydrogen and fuel cells but everything to do with the competition, which are battery electric vehicles.

General Motors, Ford and Chrysler have all stated that hydrogen cars are viable and these three companies have put millions of research dollars behind developing prototype H2 cars. But, where are the supporting companies – the one’s building the hydrogen infrastructure? Why is there no place at the table for them?

Trying to appear to have an interest in hydrogen cars is not the same as actually having an interest. It looks to me like the DOE is once again going through the motions, dragging their feet with our tax money rather than going full-steam ahead and making a real effort to turn emerging H2 technology into commercial viability. A dog without teeth is just a sad little lapdog and that’s what the DOE is for the White House in regard to hydrogen cars.

Right now a Republican and a Democrat have taken up the mantle to urge the DOE to maintain funding for hydrogen and fuel cell programs. U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have sent a letter to Dr. Chu, signed off by 12 other U. S. Senators as well.

According to Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Energy Association (FCHEA) President Ruth Cox, “We are grateful to Senators Brown and Graham, and their 12 distinguished colleagues from across the country, for this forceful message of support to preserve American jobs and leadership in the fuel cell and hydrogen energy industry.

“The disproportionate budget cuts proposed by the DOE would seriously undermine American competitiveness in this core clean energy technology—the last such technology in which the U.S. has a technical and manufacturing lead. Our industry is proud to be creating jobs as part of America’s growing clean energy economy, and we are even prouder that so many notable Senators are standing up to ensure fuel cells and hydrogen energy remain an integral component of our clean energy portfolio.”

To pull out my own political jargon for a bit, we are not just a collection of blue states and red states. We have the potential to be the United Green States. Green is the color of money during an economic recovery when jobs are created. Green is also the color of environmental protectionism.

By generating green jobs and consuming green products we can make good on both goals. What could be better than generating a large number of high-paying green jobs while protecting our air, water and land? And with the right leadership in Congress these goals are indeed do-able.

Those who are more hydrogen-friendly use estimates that are in the $4 billion to $24 billion range. Now, why is this important? Currently, President Obama is trying to cut $4 billion per year in subsidies to the Big Oil companies. Now, in the 4th quarter of 2010 Exxon’s profit was a cool $9.25 billion. And, this was for one quarter and this was only one oil company. Now, BP with Gulf Oil Spill to pay off came in with its own fourth quarter profits of over $4 billion.

Does Big Oil really need our money? In April 2008, I had talked about how the Rocky Mountain Institute had estimated a nationwide rollout of hydrogen fueling stations would cost around $4.1 billion. At the same time I also quoted Larry Burns of General Motors saying, ““A network of 12,000 hydrogen stations in the United States would put 70 percent of the U.S. population within two miles of a fueling station. If the stations cost $2 million each (estimates for the cost of a station range from $1 million to $4 million) the network would cost about $24 billion.”

In April 2010, I had talked about a company called Lumber Liquidators taking it upon themselves to put up an East Coast Hydrogen Highway system consisting of 11 fueling stations at the cost of $15 million to $20 million or less than $2 million per station.

Now, let’s say that Mr. Burns figure of $24 billion is close to correct in regard to building hydrogen fueling stations nationwide. If we were to cut and redirect the Big Oil subsidies of $4 billion per year for the next 6 years to building hydrogen fueling stations, we would be in business.

Hydrogen car manufacturers would start rolling out H2 vehicles because the fueling stations are either in place or being built. And because hydrogen cars are being built, this would encourage those seeking some of the $4 billion in subsidies to build more hydrogen fueling stations.

For the critics who have squawked for the past 10 or more years that building hydrogen fueling stations would be too expensive, is it not too expensive to keep giving $4 billion a year in subsidies to the fat cat Oil Companies? What have they done with these subsidies – keep our fuel prices low and affordable?

In the meantime, the DOE has helped both the Lawrence Livermore and Sandia National Labs rollout Ford F450 hydrogen shuttle buses. These 9-passenger shuttle buses will ferry passengers around the respective campuses all the while promoting hydrogen vehicles as the rides of the future.

In a related story, the DOE has underwritten the costs for the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) to purchase 18 additional Nuvera fuel cell powered forklifts. The hydrogen FCVs will replace battery only models and join another 20 fuel cell forklift previously purchased for use around the 1.5 million square foot Susquehanna Defense Distribution Supply Depot in New Cumberland, Pennsylvania.

Now, when it comes to politics voters are used to politicians talking out both sides of their mouths. But, hydrogen and the other alternative energy resources are not political by nature. Bipartisan support needs to be given to all forms of alternative energy in order than this country may one day soon wean itself off of oil.

When President Bush was in office he promoted hydrogen, for whatever his reasons were. Now that Obama is in office, he is downgrading the importance of hydrogen and one has to wonder if he has decided that hydrogen is a political football that needs to be punted by political pundits punishing along party lines.

But, I am here to say that hydrogen is not political. It is pragmatic. In order to wean ourselves off foreign oil and clean up our environment, hydrogen will need a place at the table of future energy and an important place at that.

The hydrogen funding cuts that Obama is proposing will amount to a whopping $70 million. President Obama’s desire to cut the hydrogen budget in nothing new.

In May, 2009 the President proposed cutting the DOE’s budget for hydrogen in general by $100 million and zeroing out the budget for hydrogen cars specifically. Yes, the economy is in trouble right now with record deficits and if the overall DOE budget were cut for clean energy research and development I wouldn’t like it but I could understand it as across the board cuts have been proposed for months now in a number of government programs.

But, to cut hydrogen funding while increasing funding for other clean energy programs has nothing to do with reducing the federal deficit. According to the White House, “Following up on President Barack Obama’s State of the Union call for the nation to get 80 percent of its electricity from clean sources by 2035, Chu said the budget would include over $8 billion for research, development, and deployment investments in clean energy technology programs. A White House fact sheet last month said that represents a one-third increase.”

Once again the President is proposing letting Japan, Germany and the other countries in the EU get a jumpstart on the U. S. in regard to building hydrogen cars and infrastructure (and then playing catch up at some future date – perhaps).

But there is still hope. In 2009, when the President made these same proposals, Congress overturned the proposal and refunded the hydrogen program. However, with a new fiscally conservative House in session the proposed cuts may become a sad reality sometime soon.

I have a dream. I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former oil company executives, electric car enthusiasts and hydrogen car pioneers will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

I have a dream that one day even the United States, sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression from Big Oil, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice for alternative fuel vehicles and Energy companies that supply that fuel.

I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by staying inside the status quo but by how far they can reach outside the box and make it a reality.

This will be the day when all of God’s children will be able to sing with a new meaning, “My country, ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim’s pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring.”

And if America is to be a great nation this must become true. So let freedom ring from the hydrogen fueling stations of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty hydrogen cars, buses and airport luggage carriers of New York. Let freedom ring from the hydrogen forklifts of the Alleghenies of Pennsylvania!

Let freedom ring from the hydrogen fueling station clusters in California!

Let freedom ring from every hill and hydrogen production center of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

And when the hydrogen economy happens, when we allow freedom to ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, “Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!”

Others may have a different dream. Anyway, this is my dream. Once again, my apologies to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who created a transformational social structure for this country. And let each of us carry the torch and push for transformational technology that will once again change this country for the betterment of mankind.

Anyway, here is the authentic “I Have a Dream” speech as spoken by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.