The advantages of hydrogen fuel-cell cars are obvious: They
produce no pollution, burn no oil or gasoline and would give
America total energy independence.
But there is no mass production of fuel-cell cars today and no
one expects them in dealer showrooms before 2010 at the
earliest.
The advantages of hydrogen fuel-cell cars are obvious: They produce no pollution, burn no oil or gasoline and would give America total energy independence.
But there is no mass production of fuel-cell cars today and no one expects them in dealer showrooms before 2010 at the earliest. What’s more, there is no network of refueling stations to pump hydrogen into innovative cars and one energy expert at the University of California at Berkeley estimates it would cost billions of dollars to create one, an average of about $5,000 per vehicle.
None of this fazes President Bush, who has begun spending $1.7 billion over five years to develop engine technology and build the infrastructure needed to put hydrogen in service stations.
Some consumer advocates wonder why Bush would steadfastly advocate research and development on a breed of car that could eventually end the business of the oil drillers and distributors who have long backed his campaigns.
The answer may be that hydrogen cars are so far away they pose no realistic threat to oil companies in this generation or the next. Which means the Bush push for fuel cells may be little more than a feint designed to frustrate and delay realistic tactics that could quickly make a dent in both smog and the cost of gasoline.
For there’s no reason Americans can’t have both.
In a Science magazine analysis, UC Berkeley Prof. Alex Farrell and colleague David Keith of Pittsburgh’s Carnegie Mellon University contended it’s unrealistic to count on fuel cells to solve the problems of automobiles anytime soon, even if General Motors has built one “Hydrogen Hummer.”
Researchers for the National Resources Defense Council agree. “We have found it will take 20 years to develop fuel cell technology even with an aggressive policy'” the group’s science director told a reporter. “There’s no doubt in the short-term, and even the middle-term, improving vehicles is the way to go.”
The NRDC forecasts there may be commercial production of as many as 100,000 fuel cell cars by 2015. That would be in keeping with a General Motors estimate that it may have the innovative vehicles at dealers around the year 2010.
But California’s experience with electric cars indicates that even if a few cars turn up in showrooms by then, they won’t sell very well. That’s because there are bound to be bugs with a technology using chemical reactions between hydrogen and a catalyst to produce electricity and stream. The electricity then powers the car, with harmless vapors the only emission. Demand also cannot be high until refueling becomes easy and there are now just three hydrogen stations in California.
Electric cars are just as clean-running as fuel cells, but short driving ranges and a dearth of recharging stations doomed them to failure. That’s why the state’s realistic Air Resources Board last year eased off on its earlier mandate that carmakers create a large fleet of EVs by the middle of this decade, switching their emphasis to gas-electric hybrids like the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight.
Meanwhile, Bush’s administration and a congressional majority that draws much of its campaign funding from automakers, auto workers unions and the oil industry steadfastly refuse to require significant improvements in the fuel efficiency and emissions of plain old gasoline-powered cars.
Farrell told a reporter that “If we use the technology we have today on gasoline-fueled vehicles, we can raise gas mileage significantly, reduce oil consumption and help ease pollution – right now.”
But that would create retooling and design costs for carmakers and cut oil company profits. Which is why there are few immediate improvements beyond the ever more popular hybrids.
And yet, the obvious answer is to do both – improve gasoline cars and develop fuel cells. If Bush and Congress are willing to invest in fuel cells because they represent no short-term threat to their big donors, fine. But voters should insist their representatives back tougher fuel efficiency standards and other improvements to today’s cars, things that require strong political will but little or no new technology.
As last year’s recall election proved, politicians can be held to account, and when it comes to mandating automotive improvements, they should be.
