Critics charge that the time frame for overcoming the technical and economic challenges to implementing wide-scale use of hydrogen vehicles is likely to be at least several decades, and hydrogen vehicles may never become broadly available.[43][63] They believe that the focus on the use of the hydrogen car is a dangerous detour from more readily available solutions to reducing the use of fossil fuels in vehicles.[64] In May 2008, Wired News reported that "experts say it will be 40 years or more before hydrogen has any meaningful impact on gasoline consumption or global warming, and we can't afford to wait that long. In the meantime, fuel cells are diverting resources from more immediate solutions."[65]
K. G. Duleep speculates that "a strong case exists for continuing fuel-efficiency improvements from conventional technology at relatively low cost."[66] Critiques of hydrogen vehicles are presented in the 2006 documentary, Who Killed the Electric Car?. According to former U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm, "A hydrogen car is one of the least efficient, most expensive ways to reduce greenhouse gases." Asked when hydrogen cars will be broadly available, Romm replied: "Not in our lifetime, and very possibly never."[66] The Los Angeles Times wrote, in February 2009, "Hydrogen fuel-cell technology won't work in cars.... Any way you look at it, hydrogen is a lousy way to move cars."[67] A 2007 article in Technology Review stated, "In the context of the overall energy economy, a car like the BMW Hydrogen 7 would probably produce far more carbon dioxide emissions than gasoline-powered cars available today. And changing this calculation would take multiple breakthroughs which study after study has predicted will take decades, if they arrive at all. In fact, the Hydrogen 7 and its hydrogen-fuel-cell cousins are, in many ways, simply flashy distractions produced by automakers who should be taking stronger immediate action to reduce the greenhouse-gas emissions of their cars."[43][68]
The Wall Street Journal reported in 2008 that "Top executives from General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. Tuesday expressed doubts about the viability of hydrogen fuel cells for mass-market production in the near term and suggested their companies are now betting that electric cars will prove to be a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale."[6][69] In addition, Ballard Power Systems, a leading developer of hydrogen vehicle technology, pulled back from the Hydrogen vehicle business in late 2007. Research Capital analyst Jon Hykawy concluded that Ballard saw the industry going nowhere and said: "In my view, the hydrogen car was never alive. The problem was never could you build a fuel cell that would consume hydrogen, produce electricity, and fit in a car. The problem was always, can you make hydrogen fuel at a price point that makes any sense to anybody. And the answer to that to date has been no."[70]. In December 2009, however, Ballard announced a three-year contract for the delivery of the FCvelocity fuel cells for Daimler Benz.[71]
The Economist magazine, in September 2008, quoted Robert Zubrin, the author of Energy Victory, as saying: "Hydrogen is 'just about the worst possible vehicle fuel'".[72] The magazine noted the withdrawal of California from earlier goals: "In March [2008] the California Air Resources Board, an agency of California's state government and a bellwether for state governments across America, changed its requirement for the number of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) to be built and sold in California between 2012 and 2014. The revised mandate allows manufacturers to comply with the rules by building more battery-electric cars instead of fuel-cell vehicles."[72] The magazine also noted that most hydrogen is produced through steam reformation, which creates at least as much emission of carbon per mile as some of today's gasoline cars. On the other hand, if the hydrogen could be produced using renewable energy, "it would surely be easier simply to use this energy to charge the batteries of all-electric or plug-in hybrid vehicles."[72]
On May 2009 the U.S. Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu announced that since fuel cell hydrogen vehicles "will not be practical over the next 10 to 20 years", the U.S. government would "cut off funds" for development of hydrogen vehicles, although the DoE will continue to fund research related to stationary fuel cells. He cited difficulties in the development of the required infrastructure to distribute hydrogen as a justification for cutting research funds.[73] The National Hydrogen Association and other hydrogen groups criticized the decision.[74] Secretary Chu told MIT's Technology Review that he is skeptical about hydrogen's use in transportation because "the way we get hydrogen primarily is from reforming [natural] gas.... You're giving away some of the energy content of natural gas.... So that's one problem.... [For] transportation, we don't have a good storage mechanism yet.... The fuel cells aren't there yet, and the distribution infrastructure isn't there yet.... In order to get significant deployment, you need four significant technological breakthroughs.... If you need four miracles, that's unlikely: saints only need three miracles".[75] Congress overrode the administration's proposal, restoring funding for hydrogen car research in its appropriations bill for 2010.[7]
The Washington Post asked in November 2009, "But why would you want to store energy in the form of hydrogen and then use that hydrogen to produce electricity for a motor, when electrical energy is already waiting to be sucked out of sockets all over America and stored in auto batteries...?" The paper concluded that commercializing hydrogen cars is "stupendously difficult and probably pointless. That's why, for the foreseeable future, the hydrogen car will remain a tailpipe dream".[47] Digital Trends reported that a December 2009 study at UC Davis, published in the Journal of Power Sources, found that, over their lifetimes, hydrogen vehicles will emit more carbon than gasoline vehicles.[76]
If you want to use alternative energy that is 3 times the cost.. GO AHEAD.. don't force the rest of us to do it in the name of saving the planet. Ultimately saving the planet is a bunch of bullshit because every 'plan' people come up with involves taxes - Which tells me its nothing but a political power grab.
Facebook
Twitter