Fuel cell R&D subsidies versus corn subsidies

one answer ADM decatur, il. They developed it and are connected to washington dc for a long time Gasahol here to stay.

 

Is the funding going to be diverted or simply cut?

 

I think it could be yet another "officials get decisions backwards" decision. I wrote this response to you before I listened to the NPR report, then I erased it and listened to your NPR report, and the NPR report said the same thing I thought to be true, so now I am re-posting. The fuel cell developments sound good to me vs. EV which of course the latter is what we are embracing at the moment + ethanol.

 

What do we have to show for the fuel cell money? No products on sale anywhere. EV/BEV? Really it's just the Leaf and T Roadster now, but technically the iMIEV is on sale.

 

Fuel cell technology has a lot of promise, but not for automobiles for the foreseeable future. They work well in off-grid applications that require a steady supply of electricity, but can't use a standard generator or radioisotope thermoelectric generator. Mostly this means space ships and, to a lesser extent, boats and RVs. High cost currently limits their use in most boats and RVs, but you do find some.

For cars, it's still not a good match. For one thing, the nature of fuel cells requires the use of a battery, so a fuel cell automobile combines the cost of an EV with the extra cost of the fuel cell. On the plus side, the battery can be smaller.

Tom

 

fuel cells look promising for stationary power generation. Solid Oxide Fuel Cells (SOFCs) are more than 50% efficient and they can consume just about anything that has a lot of hydrogen as a fuel source on account of their very high operating temps (800C). For transportation sector I don't see them competing w/pure EV. Both have technical challenges, but those facing the EV solution are far, far more solvable than those facing FCVs. As pointed out, there are EVs in production (as well as those from 10 years ago) today at a tiny fraction of the cost of FCV.

 

I'll agree that both fool cells and ethanol are boondoggles. Is it better to have one, or both ?

 

Why should auto fuel cell development be subsidized? If they work, then there is money to be made. If they don't work then the subsidies are simply a welfare payment to a "not ready for actual use" project. The Prius success was probably greatly helped by not being subsidized by a government. Think about it.

 

Well if we have to have a $7500 rebate on a Volt/Leaf, I agree the subsidy situation is out-of-control. The implication is that we are making a decision as a country what technologies we accept and do not accept. Corn is voted "in" - fuel cells have been voted "out". I feel we have already voted "out" 1000's of solutons to the energy problem, in favor of Corn as our main strategy, which I would put about 2/3-rds the way down on my list of best solutions.

 

Corn ethanol and soy biodiesel are special cases, since much of the motivation is finding another way to subsidize farmers.

Choosing other technologies is something different. Support for fuel cells was cut because it's still a research project, while EV is supported because it's already sufficient for some needs, it's near-ready for widespread use and it's about much more than just having some BEVs running around. Technological improvements have potential to hybridize most of the fleet, make PHEVs common and allow for more effective use of renewables by shifting more money into electricity to allow for infrastructural improvements.

 

you also don't need ICE. Series hybrids like Volt could be turned into fuel cell FEV in no time. Drop gasoline engine, reduce battery, add fuel cell, replace gas tank with H2 tank.

 

If you actually crunch the numbers electrification (PHEV and BEV) is subsidized at a lower rate than fuel cells or corn based ethanol.

Let's look at the corn ethanol subsidy first. There is already a mandate so the subsidy does not get rid of 1 drop of foreign oil. In fact they may actually increase the use of oil, since the subsidy reduces the cost of gasoline.

End Ethanol Subsidies, Senators Say - NYTimes.com

Cost $31 Billion with no help to the energy problems. Epic Failure of a carter era policy that should have been killed decades ago if not for the corporate welfare and the government it has bought. It has even begot a sugar tariff that has cost jobs by moving food producers to mexico and canada to produce products with sugar instead of corn sweeteners.

Next up is electrification. Producing 1 Million PHEV and BEVs won't stop the importation of foreign oil but if these technologies take hold the end of oil dependance over domestic energy is in site. The cost of the rebates around $5B over 5 years, and the cost of other sweeteners is another $5B. It does not seem like a bad investment if it gets us to greener cars. Cost $10B, you can find the money just by killing the corn ethanol blending subsidy. :rockon:

Finally we have fuel cells. These are still subsidized, but not at the crazy numbers they were in the past. They need the batteries, motors, and other parts of the electrification strategy. The tax credits will also be there if anyone can actually build the cars. Current fc subsidies for substations are 30% so R&D can take place. Given the cost of fuel cells these subsidies are much higher than electrification.
The Economics of Bloom Energy’s ‘Breakthrough’ Fuel Cell - Energy Source - How we power the world - Forbes

+1

Exactly, except you need to build an entire network of h2 stations. Much more money with much lower payoff than phev and bev incubation subsidies.

 

Not sure. There were experiments on Fuel Cells using gasoline, natural gas, etc.

BTW there were prototypes build of portable H2 generators using food leftovers to power you home generator and car.

Also H2 energy density x3 times of gasoline, and the fuel cell efficiency ~80% (vs 37% at best for ICE). 70lbs of H2 will get you alot further then 10gal of gas.

 

What aren't you sure about? If you are going to power the fuel cell with gas you are not saving gas. If you are doing it with natural gas you still need fueling stations, and why not build a reformer for hydrogen. You need 10s of billions of dollars of infrastructure. You also need most of what is in the volt - the ice.

I posted the link to the bloom box which is about as cheap and practicle as you can get today. How much will that machine cost to convert food to hydrogen?

I'm not sure of the point or relevance of this. The government is still subsidizing fuel cell development. They just aren't flushing as much down the toilet expecting a car any time soon. Some majors are promising something soon, I am not holding my breath.

 

The whole situation would be vastly better if the government did it's job......making the national and state regulations necessary for safety and pollution (and eliminate externalities that hurt us all). After that, let the free market find the best technology to achieve the end goal. For example, California took a step in the right direction by requiring xx% of renewable energy without picking a favorite technology. CARB also did good (but only temporarily) by requiring xx% pollution free vehicles. The best technologies emerged from these very simple directives (The Kramer's Junction Solar plants--still in operation and the EV1--a production EV.)

 

The automobile fool cel research industry has been at it since the 1970's making false promises to have a production ride on the road in 10 years ... on and on ad infinitum ... sucking up research dollars ... for what ... so their kids could get degrees and in turn research to death the same thing. Are we stupid or what.

Now GRAIN fuel ... THAT's ALMOST the way to go. What we really need is beef steak fuel. You feed TONS of water, and petro fertilizer, and petro pesticides, to grow grain that you might otherwise feed to starving people, and in stead ... feed it to cattle! Now all we gotta do is figure a way to burn cattle in automobiles.
(shaking head)

 

All hail the beefmobile! Where's the beef?! 'Tis an all-too-rare rare talent, Sir, to combine intelligence and sarcastic humour. Bravo.

 

A regional grocery store chain sponsors runners "powered by beef" in running races, and the beef council has teams in many states. But recently our federal government got involved to get a train powered by beef. Think of how many farmers and ranchers we can subsidize if this they start putting steaks in cars.

America's First Biodiesel Train is Powered by Beef

If you think it you can do it. But really should you:welcome:

Just kidding, this is waste tallow. I don't think they intend to try to scale it, but it does seem like a waste of money.

 

Yes FL I agree with everything you said there. One time I had a chance to talk to a congressional aide drafting a legislation, and you know, we usually have 2 problems in new legislation (1) politically correct vs. technically correct solution, and (2) if possible they put up a barrier on who is allowed to solve the problem (pro-small business, anti-big business). I agree California has sometimes made regulations that allow an open contest-winner-approach: let the best "idea" win. I don't know if this applies to fuel cells, but I was trying to support the idea in the NPR report that suggested good progress is at risk.