Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Bush's Blind Hydrogen Vision

By John Gartner, AlterNet. Posted May 20, 2004.


If energy independence is a goal of the Bush administration, why is so much research money going to fossil-fuel companies?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by John Gartner

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The Bush Administration is spending billions of dollars to replace fossil fuels with a hydrogen-based economy in order, they say, to achieve energy independence. The administration has been banging the drum that freeing us from our dependence on foreign petroleum is a matter of national security. The problem is, instead of investing in basic research that will generate hydrogen from renewable resources, the Department of Energy is primarily funding projects that either use the very fossil fuels we currently depend on or are simply "window dressing" demonstrations of technology that will never work.

On April 27, DOE Secretary Spencer Abraham opened the federal wallet by announcing $350 million in grants to fund hydrogen research projects during the next five years. The lion's share, $190 million, will go towards vehicle and infrastructure learning demonstrations, such as hydrogen fueling stations. These stations will allow a handful of fuel cell vehicles to be powered by hydrogen, which most likely would be created from natural gas.

However, this expenditure of taxpayer dollars came just weeks after the American Physical Society (APS) produced a report stating that the technology for storing and delivering hydrogen was too immature to justify spending money on such demonstration projects. The 17-page Hydrogen Initiative Report says demonstration programs "only benefit the overall program when a sufficient knowledge base exists, and "can also divert effort toward technology with limited potential." The report adds, "basic science is not receiving appropriate emphasis in the (hydrogen research) program."

Francis Skakely, associate director of public affairs for APS says that the high-pressure hydrogen storage technology currently being used in test vehicles is not viable, so spending millions on demonstration projects is a waste of money. "Unless we come up with a new technology for storing hydrogen, it's a showstopper." Meaning, we'll never drive hydrogen-powered cars.

The April DOE announcement does include spending $150 million during the next five years to address the hydrogen storage problem, but it doesn't provide a single dollar to solve what researchers say is the other great hydrogen technology hurdle -- cost-effective fuel cells that would replace internal combustion engines.

Skakely estimates that fuel cell technology, which converts hydrogen into electricity and water, must be improved by a factor of between 10 and 100 to become competitive with today's gas-craving cars. "The technology that's there now (in demonstration projects) isn't anything that people would want," Skakely says. Experts say that additional basic research needs to be done on fuel cell membranes, which separate the hydrogen into electricity and water, because they aren't durable enough and are too expensive.

Skakely also says that the amount of money dedicated to basic research should be doubled. The APS report notes that in 2004, Bush's hydrogen initiative did not provide any support for the nation's primary basic science agencies -- the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science at the Department of Energy.

Much of the $190 million being spent on infrastructure and demonstration projects will go to petrochemical and automotive companies, which also happen to make significant contributions to the Republican Party. DOE grant recipients ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillps, Shell Oil, Progress Energy, Ford, Daimler Chrysler and General Motors have given more than $900,000 to Republican candidates, while giving Democrats about one-third of that amount, according to data from the website FECinfo.com.


Digg!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Five Women Buried Alive -- and the Media Ignore It
Reproductive Justice and Gender: Why is it that we get so outraged over war but look the other way when women and girls are beaten and murdered in the name of tradition?
By Riane Eisler, AlterNet. September 6, 2008.
On Top of Jail Time, Prisoners Now Face Fees and Surcharges
Rights and Liberties: Prisoners across the country are facing court fees, arrest fees and booking fees in addition to their sentences -- and states are raking in the cash.
By Emily Jane Goodman, The Nation. September 6, 2008.
One Fifth of Iraq Funding Goes to Private Contractors
War on Iraq: If spending continues at the current rate, the U.S. will have spent 100 billion dollars on military contractors in Iraq by the end of the year.
By Willam Fisher, IPS News. September 6, 2008.

Advertisement