just say no, to hydrogen - home energy storage system

Hummer, California, April 20
The driving governor signed an executive order announcing the "hydrogen Road" at the gas station "--
The state will produce battery cars by 2010.
"The Californian have created the future and we will create the future again," Schwarzenegger said in a statement . "
The budget-strapped state did not actually put any money into the plan.
This is not the first time a politician has recognized the future of hydrogen.
Since President Bush touted hydrogen in his State of the Union speech last year, hydrogen, as a technology triple play, has exploded on the public policy stage.
Turning to hydrogen should help reduce dependence on foreign oil, air pollution and greenhouse gasesgas emissions.
Bush initially promised $1.
The $2 billion federal Hydrogen Research Fund, of which $0. 35 billion is a grant announced by the Department of Energy on Tuesday.
Target: hydrogen fuel vehicles will be on the road by 2015.
The grant coincided with the 15 annual meeting of the National Hydrogen Association in Hollywood this week, where participants were promised to test drive hydrogen fuel vehicles made by Daimler Chrysler, Ford and GM, honda, Hyundai, Nissan and Toyota.
Hollywood's hydrogen show even premiered in an hour.
A long documentary called The Age of hydrogen.
If "graduate" is refilmed today, the role of Dustin Hoffman will be told to enter hydrogen. Joseph J.
Romm is clean.
Energy guru, who is not yet ready to join the party and get high hydrogen levels with policymakers, automakers and the energy industry.
During the Clinton administration, Romm was the chief energy department official responsible for energy conservation and alternative fuels.
He is now the author of a new book, the hype of hydrogen: facts and novels in the Save the Climate Race.
"As a consultant, Romm has advised companies such as IBM, Johnson & Johnson and Texaco on how to save energy, reduce pollution and use fuel cells.
But he is worried about the exaggerated promotion of hydrogen fuel.
Battery cars as the answer to our energy dilemma is a science and technology wild goose chase, in the world
The warm clock soon came down.
Romm, driving Toyota Prius, told Sharon on a phone call in Washington, why is hydrogen a magical panacea? -
Represented by water vapor flowing out of the tailpipe--
It is likely to hinder the fight against global warming.
How can hydrogen fuel-
In fact, battery cars eventually created more greenhouses.
Gas emissions from gas vehicles that will replace hydrogen must come from somewhere.
Hydrogen is just an energy carrier.
Unlike oil, coal or natural gas, you don't need to drill hydrogen.
In fact, 95% of the country's hydrogen comes from natural gas.
So there are two problems with your fuel. cell cars.
One is, what is the most likely source of hydrogen in the coming decades, and most of it will come from fossil fuels. And problem No.
2. if you don't take the hydrogen
Website, you have to deliver it.
Hydrogen is a very dispersed gas, so it is not easy to deliver.
It takes a lot of energy to deliver it.
Most of today's hydrogen is delivered in diesel trucks.
It turns out that hydrogen only needs a lot of energy to be made and it needs a lot of energy to be delivered.
There is no guarantee that hydrogen will actually be used in fuel-cell cars.
Because fuel cells are hard to make and are very expensive at the moment, a lot of people say, "Oh, at the same time, let's put hydrogen inside --
An internal combustion engine car.
Hydrogen is seen as a pollution. free elixir.
All you have to do is put the hydrogen in something, which is no longer an environmental issue, which is ridiculous.
In fact, if you take hydrogen from fossil fuels and run it inside inefficient
An internal combustion engine car, you will eventually get a car that will produce a lot of pollution.
People need to get from their heads [the idea]
Hydrogen is essentially good for the environment.
If you run through a fuel cell, your exhaust emissions are zero.
We all want zero emissions.
However, if you burn it, you don't actually get zero tail tube emissions.
You will get a lot of nitrogen oxides because it will burn at high temperatures.
Pollution-
Free car, you need an engine that does this in pollution when it converts hydrogen into energy --free fashion.
That's the fuel cell.
This allows you to get a car that does not emit pollution at the source of the car-the tailpipe.
But global warming doesn't care where it is.
That's why for those of us who care about global warming, the most important question is, where does hydrogen come from? I am very worried that people will keep their promises of fuel --
Mobile car, but then provide your inside-
An internal combustion engine driving on hydrogen.
And then they promise you that as a long term renewable hydrogen
But they didn't tell you that it was too expensive except for some demo facilities and you wouldn't get renewable hydrogen.
So hydrogen fuel
Battery cars are unlikely to have a positive impact on the world
In the coming decades, the current cost of fuel cells is about 100 times that of internal costs
Internal combustion engine.
Now they spend hundreds of thousands of dollars each.
To be frank, it would be an amazing scientific achievement to have them within 2 times the average car.
I don't want this to happen for at least 20 years.
These cars may be expensive.
So if you want to reduce emissions, you can do other things as a solution to global warming.
The second point is that clean energy fuels such as natural gas or renewable energy can achieve more emission reductions, more cost-effective, on the grid.
For example, if you have natural gas, you can save more carbon dioxide and other contaminants by replacing the coal plant.
This allows you to save more carbon dioxide, instead of taking all the time to turn natural gas into hydrogen, transporting it to your car and squeezing it into your car,
Compared to all the hassle of building a massive hydrogen infrastructure and buying all these new cars, this is very simple and cheap.
Will hydrogen distract us from slowing global warming? I think this is a distraction right now.
Distraction is not fatal.
But if people are really starting to spend a lot of money on cars or infrastructure, then I think we're seriously discussing the issue of diversion, and in fact, it's one of the central issues that we should focus on.
I do think the research and development of hydrogen is useful because in the long run we need an oil alternative and hydrogen is a possibility.
But not the only one.
So before we are ready to do more, it may take another 20 years of R & D funding.
So what do you think of Schwarzenegger's "hydrogen road" or Bush's free fuel initiative in California? The Bush administration mainly spends money on R & D.
I ran this project at Doe and did all this research and development, and when I was there I was part of a team that increased the cost of hydrogen by 10 times, now we're adding more.
I certainly welcome those who want to increase their spending on energy research and development.
What bothers me is the people who want to start building infrastructure.
To be honest, it's like a project in California, where the governor says infrastructure will be built, but they don't put any money into it because the country doesn't have the money to buy it at all.
But I think it's too early for anyone who wants to build an infrastructure.
We don't even know what the best infrastructure is.
Hydrogen is a very dispersed gas. there is a reason why all vehicles in the world use liquid fuel.
They are easy to transport and store a lot of energy that they can release quickly.
We haven't solved the problem of how to store enough hydrogen in the car to make your car reach the distance we expect: 300 or 400 miles.
If you push the car out now, you're basically saying you're going to push the car high --
Pressure Storage, which means you have to buy a car where you may be 1 feet or less away from the compressed hydrogen tank, which can be 5,000 or 10,000 pounds hydrogen per square inch.
I don't think most people will feel very comfortable about it.
If you talk to most automakers, they don't think the public will accept this.
The other thing is that you have to build the infrastructure in super-high pressure.
So, you have to have very high gasoline, not just gasoline.
A pressure device that will squeeze out excesshigh-
Hydrogen pressure.
I think this is a very professional infrastructure.
If someone comes up with a better storage method in 10 years, then all the infrastructure will be put on hold.
If you follow the alternativefuel-
Over the past many years, we have been deploying electric cars and nature.
Gas cars and ethanol cars, not because of cars, but because of concerns from fuel suppliers, if they build this infrastructure and these cars are not popular with the public, they are troubled by these assets that will never be able to recover their money.
As far as electric vehicles are concerned, at least in California, have they not succeeded in building some infrastructure? But there are no cars now, they built the infrastructure, especially GM and some others delivered the car, but the car is not good enough to attract enough drivers to maintain the infrastructure.
After all, if I build a gas station to provide alternative fuel, I need a certain number of customers in order to make money.
If one or two appear every day, I may get stuck with an asset that doesn't give me any money.
This is the famous chicken. and-egg problem.
How do you convince the infrastructure personnel to build the infrastructure before the car is successful, but how do you get the manufacturer to build the car before there is no infrastructure, because obviously you're not going to buy a hydrogen fuel car unless you know you can refuel it.
Given the existing technology, this is a bigger problem with hydrogen.
We don't have a solution to the storage problem, so the scope of use of most hydrogen fuel vehicles is limited.
If you combine a limited range with a limited choice of fuel, you will always be very paranoid because you will run out of hydrogen.
Because unlike gasoline, if you run out of hydrogen, you're out of luck.
Someone can't pull it up with a can of hydrogen and stick it in your car.
To do this, it needs a very professional device or station.
Do you think that Schwarzenegger is now committed to building this hydrogen infrastructure, is there a risk of over-promoting hydrogen? In the long run, this could hurt its prospects, and I absolutely believe that overpromoting a technology would backfire.
Of course I do.
Electric cars were overhyped and introduced to the market too early.
As you can see, GM has now withdrawn every electric vehicle from the market and squashed them.
They are all recycled.
But whether electric cars are helping to drive the creation of hybrid cars, we now have some California regulations that push people to move to cleaner cars, which helps drive technological progress, I think there is absolutely no problem with this.
Over time, I am fully in favor of the regulations that require cleaner cars.
Take the cleanest cars on the road today, for example, Toyota Prius or Honda hybrid.
You can reduce your oil consumption and greenhouse if you buy a Prius-
Reducing emissions by half can reduce emissions by 90%.
You can do this without paying more for the car, and without giving up any other attributes you like, such as ranges.
In fact, the car has twice as much battery life as it was, because it is very efficient.
This is a very spacious car. I own it.
So this is really the first one.
Compromise car.
It seems to me that this is a huge dilemma for those who want any alternative --fuel vehicles.
You must provide better environmental performance than Prius without sacrificing any attributes.
Not only can you get twice the fuel, but you can get half the fuel.
The price of hydrogen is very expensive.
Hydrogen is a very expensive fuel.
If at any time in the next 20 years someone is trying to sell you a hydrogen fuel car, your annual fuel bill may double compared to Prius.
As petrol vehicles become cleaner and more efficient-
Like these hybrid cars. -
What impact does this have on the prospects of hydrogen fuels
Mobile-phone cars entering the market are clear, and in general, people will not go out to buy cars to reduce oil consumption.
After all, after the Second Persian Gulf War, people bought SUVs and put flags on them.
I just didn't see the evidence that you saw a lot of oil consumption getting people to buy a car.
The rise in gasoline prices will indeed prompt people to reduce fuel consumption.
The problem with hydrogen is that it is almost certainly the most expensive for all alternative fuels.
It's hard for you to get hydrogen into the fuel tank right now.
A battery car with less than $5 a gallon.
What's worse from my point of view is that it will be the cheapest hydrogen, that is, the hydrogen in natural gas.
Why do you bother to buy expensive fuel?
The battery car has a limited range and a limited choice of refueling, all of which allow you to replace imported oil with hydrogen from imported natural gas. To be honest, I don't think this will excite most consumers.
My feeling is that when you start doing this, what we need to do is wait for the renewable hydrogen because it's pollutionfree hydrogen.
But that's expensive.
Now, for renewable hydrogen, we're talking about the price of a gallon of gasoline, which is $10 to $20.
We can ask a question that exists: Is Hydrogen green if it is delivered by a diesel truck? I think what we need to do is wait low
The cost of hydrogen is renewable, but it's easy to be 20 or 30 years from now on.
So I asked a lot of people the question is: what is the value proposition of this car, it has no essential benefit to the environment.
It will only be good for the environment if it costs no more than Prius and it runs on renewable energybased hydrogen.
But I don't think that will happen in the next 20 or 30 years.
So I think it's too early to talk a lot about making cars or infrastructure.
We need three major scientific breakthroughs: we need to make major breakthroughs in fuel cells to bring them closer to internal costs.
An internal combustion engine car.
We need to make a big breakthrough in storage systems, otherwise you will only be dragged down by a car that I think will be very inadequate in the market.
The third breakthrough is renewable hydrogen, low in some form.
Cost renewable hydrogen.
I don't think it would be a "green" car in any sense from the word without these three breakthroughs.
Even though you raise all the questions about safety, cost, infrastructure, energy needed to generate hydrogen, why do you think there is so much excitement about fuel --
Now there's a vision for pollution. free future.
So in this sense, it is very attractive.
No matter where I go, people will say: this is an attractive vision, and we will one day be free from gasoline.
Even though I see a lot of other options, they don't see any of them themselves.
I also think, GM in particular, is hyping this up because they don't like fuel
The efficiency regulations of the car, they have always promised that hydrogen will become this silver-
The solution to all of our car problems is in front of us, so don't force us to use more stringent fuel
Economic standards.
What do you think are the other alternatives? The first thing to say is that the key revolution in cars has taken place in the next 30 years, which is a hybrid platform.
It puts large batteries on your car, which makes the car more efficient and powers up some aspects of the car.
So the key for us in the coming decades is to bring hybrid cars to market.
It began to happen.
Hybrid cars are being introduced by every car manufacturer.
California is pushing [partial zero-
Emission Vehicles
Enter the market.
If alternative fuels are proven to be viable, you will put them in a hybrid fuel.
You will replace the interior-
An internal combustion engine with a fuel cell, you will drive the car with hydrogen if it is feasible.
But you can also run that car with biofuels, which is ethanol.
My preference is not ethanol made of corn, but ethanol made of cellulose.
Or, crop waste other than the food portion of the crop.
This is sometimes called cellulose ethanol or biomass ethanol.
I do think that if you take Prius and run with a mixture of 85% ethanol, then you drive 300 miles per gallon of gas.
Another strategy that I am also very keen on is the possibility of installing a larger battery on the car, allowing you to run a pure electric car for a certain amount of mileage, sometimes called a grid-
Connecting hybrid power.
So you can replace gasoline with more electricity.
It will use electricity more efficiently than fuel cells.
It may bring you zero benefits.
A short-distance driving urban discharge vehicle.
Then you have an internal advantage for a long trip
Internal combustion engine for refueling.
I think these grids
Once you bring hybrid into the market, connected hybrid is a natural evolution.
All of Me is not pre-
Judge the answer.
The government did not say: I know today that Americans will drive hydrogen fuel cars in 30 or 20 years.
Because I don't see anyone who can know the answer to this question.
If you look at the report of the National Academy of Sciences or the report of the American Physics Society, they all know that without a scientific breakthrough, hydrogen cars may become a dead end in technology.
I just think that what we know today is not enough to say that we know what will be won in the market.
Natural gas prices are rising in the United States. S.
Prices have remained much lower in recent months than in other countries.
Do you think that higher prices will encourage people to turn to cars with better fuel economy? I think it will definitely affect more and more people as the fuel economy gets higher and higher.
But I think it's hard to believe that the price of gasoline will reach such a high price that it will really change the kind of cars people drive.
I don't think you will see the gasoline tax in this country.
On the question of whether we run out of oil, I don't think that will happen fast enough to have a significant impact on changing the world.
What do you think consumers and citizens can do now to deal with global warming in the automotive sector, they should go out and buy a hybrid.
I think you can reduce the greenhouse.
When buying a very clean car, the gas emissions are halved.
Efficiency is usually the highest cost.
You can take effective strategies for global warming or any pollution reduction.
So I think people should go out and buy a hybrid in your car.
There are many strategies in your home.
The simplest thing is to find Energy Star products when buying electrical appliances.
In the company, you can also do a lot of things, I wrote the whole book on this issue.
In terms of policy, what should the government do now to help reduce greenhouse gases?
If you want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Gas emissions in the automotive industry you just have to let the government intervene in fuel efficiency.
There is really not much escape from government intervention, whether you like hybrids or hydrogen, it is true.
The government just needs to weigh and make sure that any efficiency improvement in the vehicle ends up moving in the direction of fuel economy, not like acceleration or greater weight.
As far as the power sector is concerned, we need to do something like McCain. Lieberman bill.
We need to cap carbon dioxide emissions in the power sector to get the power sector to find the best way, the most cost-effective
Effective ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Are you optimistic about these things that are currently being implemented by Congress or the government?
I think it is impossible to be optimistic about this.
I think it's hard to see political will realistically.
What happens if we don't act? I don't think it will be released at the end of May Day like the movie The Day After Tomorrow.
But on our current path, the average temperature in the United States will be 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than it is today at the end of this century.
I don't think most Americans know what will happen if we don't change our course.
I don't think most Americans are aware of the impact this has on our way of life.
I do therefore feel the need for action.
Tony Blair said last year that if we want to avoid catastrophic global warming, we need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 50% by 2050.
It's not easy if we start today, but at least it works ---
A decrease of 50% in 50 years.
If we do not take any action in 20 years, our emissions will increase by 50%.
Then we have to reduce emissions by 75% in 20 and a half years.
It's really hard to do.
So, I think that while global warming is a long-term fact.
The word "problem", action must be relatively rapid, otherwise it will become too expensive.