A Good Idea!
It is not often that I find myself wanting to write in praise of something the House of Representatives has done, but I do enjoy those rare moments when they occur. Last week, the House voted 416-6 to sponsor an “H-Prize,” program to encourage research into the use of hydrogen as an alternative automobile fuel.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Bob Inglis and co-sponsored by 26 additional members from both parties, “would award four prizes of up to $1 million every other year for technological advances in hydrogen production, storage, distribution and utilization. One prize of up to $4 million would be awarded every second year for the creation of a working hydrogen vehicle prototype,” according to the AP report. “The grand prize, to be awarded within the next 10 years, would go for breakthrough technology.”
Inglis called the bill “an opportunity for a triple play”: increased security by decreasing the use of foreign oil, environmental improvements, and new jobs. Science Committee Chairman Sherry Boehlert (a cosponsor) said “Prizes can draw out new ideas from scientists and engineers who may not be willing or able to participate in traditional government research and development programs, while encouraging them, rather than the taxpayer, to assume the risk.” Democrat Dan Lipinski, another cosponsor, added “Perhaps the greatest role that the H-Prize may serve is in spurring the imagination of our most valuable resource, our youth.”
A companion bill has been introduced in the Senate by Lindsey Graham and Byron Dorgan; action is expected in the near future.
This is precisely the kind of investment that is needed to spur increased interest and innovation in the energy industry and beyond. I applaud the House action, and I urge the Senate to pass the bill and send it to the president’s desk.
[Note: Also posted at Charging RINO]
14 Responses to “A Good Idea!”
Howdy All,
I agree with Jeremy that this is a fantastic idea. It gives incentive to independent thinkers which is one of the things that really drive great inventions. However I have one caveat.
I am a geologist who studies the carbon cycle over the earth’s history, mainly how the CO2 balance effects climate via its role as a greenhouse gas. While hydrogen vehicles are great for the reasons Jeremy mentioned, their by product is water vapor. Water vaopr is the strongest greenhouse gas there is. Compared to CO2 it is like yugo next to a F1 racer. Now I am definetly not saying that hydrogen fuel is not exciting and a real long term answer, I am just suggesting some thought and prudence into the byproducts of running cars on hydrogen.
I’m sorry I cannot be as enthusiastic as everyone else. While it’s a great idea to create incentives to research alternate fuel sources, why should it be limited to hydrogen? Had this been a broader bill that allowed the scientific community to look at all the alternative sources of energy and identify what technology or technologies they were interested in pursuing, it would have been far more productive as far as advancing the development of alternative sources of energy.
This bill picks winners – hydrogen – and losers – everything else – at a time where nobody can tell (a) whether or when hydrogen-based applications can be commercially available, (b) whether significant improvements can be attained on other alternative energy technologies, and (c) whether, in our quest to reduce – and eventually eliminate – our dependency on oil, it will take more than one alternative technology to achieve that goal.
Mzungo, good point.
Roberto, I agree that we need to do more (much more) and reach way beyond hydrogen. But we can’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. I hate to say “baby steps” but in the face of all the opposition out there to doing anything, I’ll take this as a start.
Burning fossil fuels also puts off water vapor. Your’re being trolled.
We have 2 commonly proposed sources for hydrogen. One is stripping the hydrogen off of fossil fuels. It would be relatively simple to contain the carbon and other polluting elements. However we can also make electric plants that isolate most of the CO2. The thing is they cost a lot more money. However stripping hydrogen is going to be expensive, it’s going to cost energy and you’re hoping for increased energy from fuel cells.
The other option for hydrogen is “cracking” water. This is expensive and inefficient, it does not produce new water in the system.
Again how do you fall for this troll?!! Admittedly it’s a fun troll, but it kind of destroys credibility.
Remember the thing about cracking water is that you need the energy. You can get this from various sources. And hydrogen is a plausible way of storing things like excess generated by wind or solar. However it is not the only plausible way. Arguably not the best. And if the goal is reduced Co2 production then it’s going to takr quite a bit of production to eliminate Co2 burning electric plants, then many functions in factories, then you can move on to electrifified trains and buses.
Hydrogen is an interesting possibility. And I have no problem with supporting it. I think prizes are a good method for things in general, though these are trivial and they don’t even define breakthrouughs to be rewarded. So mostly silly.
One would like to see things like stress on good insulation, use of geothermal systems for new furnaces and all the rest which would free energy for the production of hydrogen.
I think I figure out how you fell for the troll. You thought hydrogen was free, just as you didn’t know carbon fuels including wood and the food you put in your body produce water as well as CO2 as a side effect.
Free energy is magic and the ignorance is from sleeping in junior high chemistry.
Great troll Mzungo!!!
JBD,
I just don’t think it’s a good start. Remember the days of VHS vs. Betamax (and if you don’t, then I’m SERIOUSLY dating myself)? This is like creating an incentive to see how quickly we can get Betamax on the market. I’m not suggesting hydrogen research is doomed, but we don’t know how feasible it is to make it commercially available compared to the alternatives.
Heh, yeah but Beta-Max was a better product.
Roberto – I actually don’t remember Betamax at all … although I do remember when we got our first VHS player (I was six or seven, I think). I certainly agree that we can’t put all our eggs in one basket (as we have with petroleum) – perhaps a better idea than the H-Prize is a general E-Prize (or something) designed the same way but using any energy source, not just hydrogen.
Oh boy, my post was not not meant as a troll. My point was that when you combine 2 molecules of H2 and one molucle O2 (I was assuming that H2 was petroleum derived although there are other souces) in a hydrogen combustion reaction you get 2 molecules of H20. This is the only major byproduct of the hydrogen combustion reaction (that I know of). While hydrocarbon combustion may produce some water vapor it is not the main component (CO2, CO etc are the main component. My concern is the addition of water vapor to the global hydrological cycle and the environmental inpact. I did not mean to imply that you got something from nothing. Sorry if any one thought i was trolling.
Mzungo:
You claim to be a scientist, but do not know the energy that comes from burning carbon based fuels comes when the hydrogen linked to the carbon combines with oxegen to produce energy?
Yes we burn hydrogen al the time. Look at one of the carbon based chains that provide fuel. What other atom do you see there that will combine with another to produce energy.
Hydrogen is the only one. Basic chemistry as a way of life.
As for your claim that water vapor is the biggest source of greenhouse gas that is true, but not the way you imply. By volume co2, methane and others do far more..
You are gtrabbing onto a rightwing claim that co2 and the rest don’t matter because vapor from the oceans and elsewhere is responsible for retaining much heat, not understanding that the stuff we are releasing is changing the balance to a more (though far from) Venus like situation. And yes there may be a positive feedback system, as things get hotter more water evaporates. But the amount released by combustion isn’t the problem.
Oh Boy,
Alright first I am a scientist, one that deals with global cycles of bioactive elements. Second, H2O as molecule is much stronger than either methane or CO2, not saying that the changes attrributed now are because of water. Third no carbon combines with O2?
My point is that adding more water to the atmosphere via hydrogen vehilcle it is important to consider the possible ramifications. Already published articles have addressed the inpact on H2 leakage on stratosphere chemistry (I can send you the articles if you would like). My idea is to have a simple water reclaimation device on the car so we do not end up messing things up more than we already have at the present time. It would be nice to approach the hydrogen economy from a stand point of knowledge.
My post was meant as a word caution of the possible consequences of running on hydrogen vehicles. I still strongly support the move to hydrogen, although I would like to see more advance in the biomass/microbial creation of H2.
Mzungo:
Yes you are a troll. When you burn gasoline all the energy comes from the hydrogen combining to create H2O.
A hydrogen system would in theory isolate the carbon and other problems while allowing more efficient use of that energy through a fufty percent plus fuel scell rather than a thirty percent something diesal or less efficint internal combustion. If you could get the hydrogen off efficiently you could in theory intriduce less h2o to the atmosphere.
Hopefuly you’se sent a few back to their chemistry texts which is good trolling. I also fear you are serious which is also good trolling.
For those who want numbers water vapor makes up 3 to 4% of the atmosphere and cause 50 to 60% of the heating.
CO2 is roughly .0385% of the atmosphere and causes 15 to 20% of the heating.
Note that only a fraction of that CO2 came from our fuel burning. The amount of water vapor we have produced is larger since there are typically several hydrogen atoms attached to each carbon in an oil so the increase will be several times that of CO2 by volume.
But it is still trivial.
The right is throwing out this notion within a highschool sophomore capacity to google the numbers and do the calculation.
And they really don’t understand that when loght their barbeque that to the extent the coals are fully burned they have created as much H2O as if they stripped the hydrogen from he charcoal and used it in a fuel cell or burned it without the carbon.
They don’t understand fire makes water and that the number of hydrogen atomes remains the same.
These guys are back in the 18th century.
And it appears that among the six no votes (republicans all), that Jeff Flake and Ron Paul were among them – which was probably a function of them not liking to spend federal money on anything (usually a laudable goal), not against the acceptance of new fuel types. So does this make hydrogen the new “Uniter”?
Alright, Oh boy, My main point to this whole thing is that we need to look at the environmental impacts before we run head long into an new technology (remember CFC’s, great and unreactive in the troposphere, not so much in the stratosphere). Please read the following letter to editor of the journal Science and if you want the references included.
Science article
One solution as I mentioned above is to capture the water in a simple cooling device like a small radiator. Since fresh water is going to become increasingly in short supply it might be nice to take a procative approach.
By the way the H/C ratio in most petro products is 2, so for one CO2 produces you get one H2O. When you combust one hydrogen you get one H2O.