Print 262 comment(s) - last by ICE1966.. on May 19 at 9:42 PM

The Honda FCX Clarity, a production hydrogen fuel cell vehicle  (Source: Honda)
Hydrogen industry is dealt a major blow

Amid automotive and bank bailouts, and massive government investment in research, one group that would seemingly be getting a healthy dose of government grants and loans has instead seen its lifeline evaporate.  The hydrogen industry's $1.2B USD boost, proposed by President Bush, has been partially axed by President Barack Obama as part of several billion dollars in budget cuts.

The primary reason for forsaking the hydrogen industry, according to Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, is that it’s not close enough to being marketable.  Department spokesperson Tom Welch states, "The probability of deploying hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in the next 10 to 20 years is low."

Mr. Welch comments that despite advances, hydrogen production, storage, and transport remain tremendous obstacles.  Furthermore, he says the money needed to finance the infrastructure necessary to fuel hydrogen fuel cell vehicles -- hydrogen pipelines and refueling stations -- would be prohibitively expensive.

The cuts will reduce the $169M USD per year in funding of fuel cell and hydrogen technologies down to $68.2M USD, saving the U.S. taxpayer $100.8M USD.  The cuts will virtually eliminate the automotive fuel cell research grants.  The remaining funding will be used to investigate non-automotive fuel cell uses.

The funding was first proposed by President Bush during his 2003 State of the Union address.  He stated, during the address, "With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free."

President Bush backed up his rhetoric by spending over $500M USD on government-funded research into transporting, distributing and storing hydrogen fuel.  Philip Clapp, president of the National Environmental Trust, had criticized the plan at the time for being too little to truly help.  He stated, "This was window-dressing pure and simple."

Now Mr. Clapp and others are left to rethink this attitude as they remember back on the progress the industry has made over the last several years and ponder what future it might hold, without government funding and support.  With auto companies worldwide in dire financial straits, and lacking the ability to spend large amounts of money on future technology research, it seems that the field of automotive hydrogen fuel cells, for the time being, is going to be greatly diminished.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By therealnickdanger on 5/11/2009 10:37:11 AM , Rating: 5
saving the U.S. taxpayer $100.8M USD

Gee, thank you, Mr. Messiah. I would rather he had not given ACORN $5 billion as part of the "stimulus".

By nycromes on 5/11/2009 10:52:21 AM , Rating: 2
I couldn't help but read that statement about savings and think about when my significant other goes shopping, comes home with bags of stuff and then says about how much money she saved (buying stuff on sale). That "savings" is already gone, and we will not see any of the effect of said savings in any way like tax breaks. Its sad really.

By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 11:01:31 AM , Rating: 5
Yes because large scale electric vehicle deployment is anywhere near being ready? Just as running our country off just solar and wind energy is anywhere near being possible?

I love it how Obama comes out an is like "I SAVED YOU MONEY" when he cuts $17 billion but at the same time wants to spend trillions on things the vast majority of the country doesn't want.

By stubeck on 5/11/2009 11:09:36 AM , Rating: 1
Whats he want to spend trillions on?

By xti on 5/11/2009 11:28:34 AM , Rating: 5
not on the camaro!

By Tsuwamono on 5/11/09, Rating: -1
By MrBlastman on 5/12/2009 10:50:11 AM , Rating: 5
Whoa there... Let me clarify your statement...

"Nothing, Obama is full of ****. Ignore him.. lol"

The first sentence I'd agree with, the second, not. Obama is shaping up to be quite a dolt indeed, as his level of 'hairbrained-ness' grows on a daily basis. Gee, lets:

a. NOT encourage development of nuclear power
b. NOT encourage development of hydrogen-fuel powered vehicles (which is potentially more practical than current-tech ethanol)
c. (stealing from another poster) spend billions on ACORN which helped get him elected (biased group anyone?)
d. Help save Americans "money" by giving them healthcare (gee, where the heck is the "money" going to come from to pay for it - *ding ding!* - US!)

In some ways... _some_ ways, his head is screwed on as losely as Bush's was, in others, it is screwed on even looser. Ah well, due to the run up in corn prices, my popcorn costs a little more than it did before, but, I've managed to stockpile quite a bit to sit back and eat while I watch the circus.

Thank you Mr. Obama for yet another silly, disagreeable decision out of your White House.

By h0kiez on 5/12/2009 4:34:48 PM , Rating: 2
If you listened to him during the campaign, it was painfully obvious that he would be opposing nuclear power in any way/shape/form. Only when pressed hard, did he say things like he was "potentially open to the idea" even though he had constantly voted to kill nuclear at every turn as a senator. Nuke plants, a better power grid, and many more hybrids could go a long way towards our energy independence, and the tech is all there...right now.

What I can never figure out it how, home of so many Ron Paul supporters early on became during the campaign (and still is) The two are so idealogically different that I just don't get it.

By kaoken on 5/13/2009 12:20:42 AM , Rating: 1
First off nuclear power is even worst than carbon based energy due to the radioactive waste.

Second if you read the article, he is encouraging hydrogen fuel cells, just reduced funding. Again citing the article, hydrogen fuel cells are no-where practical even with today's technology. The problem with fuel cells is not the research, but the infrastructure required.

By MrBlastman on 5/13/2009 10:36:37 AM , Rating: 1
Do you seriously believe that? You seriously think that the nuclear waste emission makes it that far worse?

What about the new 7-stage technology that includes the use of a fusion reactor which practically negates 90% of waste emissions? You should read up on that.

Nuclear waste is a very minor issue. Modern reactors are coming with ways to keep wastes contained for many, many years internally within their own structure requiring zero transport to a different location. Waste is a very minor issue and something I would hardly be worried about.

Nuclear power is cheaper, the fuel is incredibly abundant, it is extremely clean and most of all, it makes sense more than anything else we have feasibly available at this point in time. You should really take some time to learn more about it. The only reason people are afraid of it is because of uninformed fear monger groups which try to brainwash the public into being scared of it due to events such as Chernobyl, which, with a Western-based technology reactor, is impossible due to their net-decreasing reaction if left unattended.

Don't listen to the fear, embrace the reality.

By mino on 5/13/2009 4:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, this negative/positive energy output feedback has nothing to do with western/eastern technology.
It is just that uncle Brezhnev wanted plutonium for his nukes regardless of the cost so RBMK was pushed for mass power generation ...

Well, he got them. And nuked its own country in the process.

By KamiXkaze on 5/15/2009 10:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly that is the direction where headed too.


By BikeDude on 5/16/2009 7:21:48 AM , Rating: 2
b. NOT encourage development of hydrogen-fuel powered vehicles (which is potentially more practical than current-tech ethanol)

That is a bit vague. "Potentially"?

Ethanol virtually "grows on trees". I realize it has been blamed for last year's price-hike on corn, but that makes absolutely no sense given that most farmers had problems makings ends meet due to the ridiculously low prices of grain and corn!

The ethanol that fuels my car comes from small patches of land in Brazil that are used for growing sugar canes.

If we wanted lower prices of food, we should stop growing unnecessary things like flowers, tobacco, opium and we should start farming land that was previously left alone (because of the ridiculously low prices of grain).

By MrBlastman on 5/16/2009 11:09:23 AM , Rating: 4
Look it up - there is not enough land in America to farm and supply our demand for ethanol while still producing enough food for us to live on. There isn't - this is a fact. We can either grow fuel and starve or eat. Ethanol using corn or other foodsources is stupid. Perhaps using waste products makes sense, but regular food - no.

Yes, the price hikes were a direct result of the incentive policy given to farmers. They were subsidized and made more money if they produced food for ethanol rather than regular food. Why would they bother making enough of regular food? They didn't and instead they produced more corn, thus raising the prices of our other staple goods. It is a simple lesson from the concept of supply and demand.

Import it from Brazil? Sure, we could do that, but it would defeat the purpose of become totally independent of foreign oil/fuel. I see no point in that venture with the growing power of Hugo Chavez in the region. Obama clearly has shown that he will do nothing to curb this. Nuclear is the answer. Nuclear is the solution. How many times do we have to pound that into the heads of other people here?

By BikeDude on 5/16/2009 12:20:51 PM , Rating: 1
There isn't enough ethanol to supply all cars in all of America.

But look at the number of ethanol cars in Brazil, and how little land is spent to grow sugar canes to cover the demand. Look at how much they are able to export to countries in Europe that are also using ethanol as fuel. Plus think about how this helps their economy.

It clearly is a viable alternative. Not as a full replacement, but certainly as a stop-gap solution here and now.

There are also other possible sources, like algea or plain old garbage.

As for plain corn (maize), like what is used in the US, then yes... That is not the best source. BUT! Did corn producers earn much before the advent of E85? Was it a viable thing to grow in the first place? Economically speaking...?

Or do you propose an economic model where the state subsidizes the farmers even more? Or should only rich people be able to afford food? How do you want to solve this?

By Lugaidster on 5/18/2009 10:17:54 AM , Rating: 1
What the heck is wrong with you? One thing is to hate Chavez but don't go putting every country in South America in the same bag. Chavez is nowhere near having any significant power over any other country than his own (Venezuela).

Venezuela and Brazil have nothing in common but their borders. And if Venezuela had good relations with Brazil (Or any other country besides Cuba or Bolivia for that matter) they wouldn't need all the ethanol they need since Venezuela practically shits petroleum and could give them some.

Chavez is hated by most countries in the region so don't come saying that assbag is gaining any power in the region or any other BS 'cause that's just being ignorant.

It's like saying Southamerica produces cocaine just because Colombia produces it, or that we live in huts.

You should read on the most prosperous nations in the region, and you'll see that we have nothing to do with Chavez, though I agree some of our presidents a bit on the corrupt side the net effect is at least the same as having Obama as a president.

By Regs on 5/18/2009 5:14:56 PM , Rating: 2
we live in a nation that requires water suppliers to publish their nutritionl facts on the back of their bottles....we're not going to see a nuclear power plant in our neighbor hoods anytime soon.

By Avitar on 5/18/2009 5:34:37 PM , Rating: 2
I should point out that the US output of ethinol for 10% of liquid fuel needs is already greater than the entire output of Brazil.

By JKflipflop98 on 5/17/2009 11:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
No. I am totally against any technology that converts a food source into fuel for a vehicle.

It is arrogant and perverse to make corn into ethanol while people within the United States starve to death. Just because it can be done, doesn't mean it should.

Nuclear power is a clean, cheap, safe method of power generation we have on tap and ready to go NOW. People have just been ingrained with the mantra "Nuclear = BAD" for so long that they just can't shake it. That is where our money should be going. Nuclear will last us until we can start harvesting our local star for energy.

By Natfly on 5/11/2009 11:34:16 AM , Rating: 5
Bailing out the banks, maybe? Wasn't that about a trillion or so?

By Armassault on 5/13/09, Rating: 0
By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 11:34:32 AM , Rating: 4
Obama's proposed fiscal year 2010 budget is $1.7 Trillion in the red.

By tjr508 on 5/11/2009 2:43:06 PM , Rating: 2
As of a couple hours ago we can add in another $90B for a grand total of $1.84x10^12.

By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 2:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
Or an additonal $5520 per man woman and child piled onto the national debt.

By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 3:01:21 PM , Rating: 2
sorry, next years addtion will be $5520 up $420 from $5100.

By mdogs444 on 5/11/09, Rating: -1
By stubeck on 5/11/2009 12:08:56 PM , Rating: 5
He's spending trillions on teleprompters? Wow!

By foolsgambit11 on 5/11/2009 12:36:57 PM , Rating: 5
It takes trillions to apologize? Wow, no wonder Bush never admitted to any of his mistakes.

By sgw2n5 on 5/11/2009 1:17:50 PM , Rating: 5
The butthurt is strong with this one..

By HinderedHindsight on 5/12/2009 12:04:39 AM , Rating: 2
How much BS do you care to spread?

Socialized health care

Not happening:

abortion clinics

A bit different than what is claimed:

photo ops

Bush didn't do this with a big "Mission Accomplished" banner behind him? Photo ops are half of the job of a President, any and all of them.

apologizing for the worlds problems

You mean taking responsibility for some of the mistakes America has committed to repair diplomatic relations? Believe it or not, some countries will be friendly if we are friendly. Here we are as a country complaining about accountability in our real estate and financial areas, but God forbid we take responsibility on the world stage. Yet when it comes to joblessness, unwanted pregnancy, oh we are all for responsibility. Just not when it come to our military killing people.

Some of the other items you bring up I'm not entirely familiar with so they *might* be valid. But given how much BS was in the stuff you already mentioned (and some items I'm familiar with I'm not even going to address because they just reek of BS that was already debunked), I have my doubts.

By Avitar on 5/18/2009 5:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
I was not aware that the CVN Lincoln had been reengaged in the Middle East. If it hasn't I guess, its mission was accomplished after all and the crew entitled to their banner. That it was the ship's force's banner and not Bush's banner is something that everyone who has contact with the Navy knows.

We who work with nuclear submarines heard about the banner from the nuclear carrier but the Bush deranged media pointedly, did not mention this when they could avoid it. Of course, GE (NBC etc.) will always move the goal posts so no mission is ever accomplished, by the US military, unless it is running away.

The energy problem is not a big one requiring new technology. We have 3800 years of known Nuclear Power reserves thanks to war planning. The entire volume of waste from those millennium will be smaller than a single battle ship. Turn the waste into glass encapsulated blocks, bury it in one of subsiding tectonic plates and if it ever comes up, in 70 million years or so it will be safe by then. I personally would keep it around since I believe that we are likely to find a number of useful things to do with it in the future but approaching it as something to be gotten rid of this is one of at least a dozen approaches for permanent disposal using current technology.

By Belard on 5/12/2009 8:37:33 PM , Rating: 2

By Spuke on 5/11/2009 12:10:54 PM , Rating: 5
Whats he want to spend trillions on?
I hate to say this but go watch TV.

By stubeck on 5/11/2009 12:27:16 PM , Rating: 5
I was assuming he was talking about spending trillions on particular programs, not in total. I know the spending is ridiculous, I just hope it gets to a reasonable level at some point since we're setting ourselves up for epic fail when China says "no more loans".

By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 1:55:48 PM , Rating: 5
There are no plans for a "reasonable" level of spending... He raised the deficit from $450B to $1.7T and wants to "cut it in half" by the end of his first term ($750B)

Hooray media cheerleading and the stupid masses which go along with it!

By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 4:45:15 PM , Rating: 2

Here's his "reasonable spending" plan. It "goes down" and then goes right back up.

By HinderedHindsight on 5/11/2009 11:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, let's pretend that most of the spending that Obama is doing now is not due to anything that happened during the last 8 years. Let's also pretend that Bush's spending did not go up steadily over 8 years in office, and let's also pretend that he didn't fund any right wing pet projects during his 8 years.

Pretending that somehow if a Republican were in office today would change the face of how much is spent is denial, plain and simple. The economy is in shambles, this is why Bush spent a ton of money at the end of his term. If the recession happened sooner, a lot of the money that Obama is spending now would have been spent by a Republican in an attempt to save the economy. I didn't agree with Bush on a lot, but I think he did the right things toward the end of his term to try and save the economy.

You want to know what's different about Obama's administration? It has nothing to do with money, and it has nothing to do with the press. The simple fact is that people who disagree with Obama (as far as I have heard) or the Administration's decisions are not being dismissed as a traitor or as being unpatriotic. The Administration to a much larger degree than in the past is welcoming discourse, questions, and criticisms. Although perhaps they should be considering many of those who criticize Obama now were the same people who said over the last 8 years that disagreeing with the sitting Commander in Chief meant that they are against the United States. How surprising that this philosophy is not being repeated by staunch Republican supporters today.

By svenkesd on 5/12/2009 9:00:50 AM , Rating: 4
Just because Bush was an idiot doesn't make it okay for Obama to do whatever he wants.

By Avitar on 5/18/2009 5:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Bush really was not an idiot. He does not seem to feel any urge to explain himself and being a former jetjocky definitely shapes his personality but his Harvard MBA really paid off.

He used lots of carrots to maneuver China into adopting and becoming dependent on what is a Capitalist economic system. Of all the old industrialized countries, only Spain had better growth than the United States over the last eight years. It may be horrifying to some people to hear that based on the published figures in the London "Economist" the Bush administration was the best run of the industrial powers.

By sinful on 5/12/2009 12:18:11 AM , Rating: 2
Here's a less biased source:

A quick summary:
In the past 27 years, Democrats have increased the national debt by 4.2% .
In the same approximate timeframe, Republicans increased the national debt by 36.4%.

In other words, if you put a Republican in office they spend like crazy and cause MASSIVE increases in the national debt.

One only needed to look at McCain's strategy of "Spend spend spend and tax cuts for ultra wealthy" to see his policy would have resulted in a MUCH more dire economic situation.

In other words, compared to the Republican alternative, Obama is the FISCAL CONSERVATIVE.

By MrBungle123 on 5/12/09, Rating: 0
By HinderedHindsight on 5/12/09, Rating: 0
By HinderedHindsight on 5/12/2009 1:13:34 AM , Rating: 2
To simplify my point: no rich person can wave their magic money clip and instantaneously create jobs. They don't do that, and in fact, they don't like to do it. If they did, we would be experiencing as many foreclosures due to the increasing unemployment rate.

By waffle911 on 5/12/2009 2:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
by HinderedHindsight on May 12, 2009 at 1:13 AM To simplify my point: no rich person can wave their magic money clip and instantaneously create jobs... If they did, we would be experiencing as many foreclosures due to the increasing unemployment rate.

Wait, I'm confused. Assuming the rich could and would instantaneously create more jobs, how would unemployment be going up?

By callmeroy on 5/12/2009 3:09:33 PM , Rating: 2
Another post posted for the sake of one upping someone else....

Rich do, technically, create the jobs - why you are hard nose to try and point otherwise is every bit as ridiculous to me as Obama's theory of how you solve a financial crisis is to keep throwing money at the problem.

Even if you aren't rich but bring a stable business plan to a bank for a loan --- the bank gives you the loan. In that example the bank is indeed playing the role of the "rich person". The example is far to easy to make if you get it from venture capitalists.

It takes money to make money --- period. Even how you get to work - whether you use public transportation or not --- costs money. You don't get paid unless you get to work in the first place. Money. Your education costs money to get you the credentials to get the job in the first place. Money. For most families college educations are paid through loans, loans financed by banks --- and rich people.

The about 5% of the total US tax paying population pays about 2/3rds of the nations tax bill each year....there's an awful lot of government business, investment and education assistance programs --- I read somewhere that government programs are funded by tax dollars.

I'll have to find that article someday and post it here. ;)

By Regs on 5/18/2009 5:52:28 PM , Rating: 3
I agree with your principles. Money makes money - though I know we both agree that it also takes a very capable, motivated, and skilled person to do this. For me, the creators of the Animal Ear Protector or the Flowbee do not count as they really have no benefit in improving the quality of human life. Nor are the greedy bastards that came from Enron.

We lack real innovation. I'm so sick of this status quo crap and It really disheartens me to see Obama become just another president who realizes he's leading a nation of people who want nothing more to suck on their mothers tit, making easy money. We need motivation and maybe a large and pro-longed recession is just what the doctor ordered.

By MrBungle123 on 5/12/2009 2:45:13 AM , Rating: 2
If the rich are not the ones that create the jobs let me ask you this... how many jobs have you or anyone else got from a poor person?

The poor have no (or very little money) making it impossible for them to support a payroll.

Most rich people got where they were by building a company (which in most cases requires substantial funds) the money can be either borrowed (from banks owned by rich people) or they could use money they saved by working from someone else (a rich person that had already created jobs and hired them). No matter how you look at it rich people are a vital link in this chain.

By Alexstarfire on 5/12/2009 8:07:35 PM , Rating: 2
Technically he's right. Unless you want to count a company as a rich person. No one person owns a company so they don't actually pay for it, nor do they make the final decision to create jobs. Those that do actually own their own company are not ones I would consider rich. Perhaps well off, but not rich.

By jasper2008 on 5/12/2009 9:36:37 AM , Rating: 2
OK, then where is your job from? From the government?

By Alexstarfire on 5/12/2009 8:09:46 PM , Rating: 1
Not mine, but both of my parents work for the government.

By sinful on 5/12/2009 3:20:06 AM , Rating: 2
Can't we get over this stupid "R vs. D" my party good their party bad petty pointless argument and start caring about what's happening to our freaking country already!?

That's all swell & great, but you're basically saying "Let's completely ignore how we ended up in this situation".

Basically, the last 8 years Bush cancelled the insurance on the car, ran it into the ground, and totaled it. Now Obama has to come in, fix the car, get it running again, and then sign up for insurance.

Now you're going "Oh my gosh, look at this bill! Replace the engine? Insurance? Oh my gosh, we need to start caring about what's happening to our car!"
Great observation, where was this concern while we were getting into this situation?

there is no way we can maintain the spending levels we have apparently become accustomed to and keep tax levels somewhere south of outright oppressive!

Actually, the concept is relatively simple: raise taxes during a good economy, lower taxes during a bad economy.
Unfortunately, if the party in charge doesn't raise taxes during the good times, the president during bad times has to either
1) raise taxes during a recession, or
2) engage in deficit spending until the economy recovers

And as much as cutting social programs does in regards to the deficit, it only goes so far. Less than 1/3rd of our money goes to social programs. The rest? Military spending. Where is that money going? For the war in Iraq & Afghanistan? Think real hard on the reason why we're there...

and can we quit complaining about "tax cuts for the rich" already?!

For one year? Oh, you're right.



So basically, we would've been able to pay for it, no problem, if you considered the taxes under Clinton reasonable.

Bush took a Balanced budget, with a budget SURPLUS, and turned the economy into a steaming pile of slag and left us with a gigantic deficit.

Go to your local community college and take ECON 101 and learn something about how an economy works, the rich people give you jobs,

LOL, you should follow your own advice.

go look up the numbers from the IRS and find out who pays the taxes in this country it might surprise you.

Maybe you should do the same; then realize that tax cuts for them might result in a a HUGE DEFICIT.
Funny how that works, doesn't it? You give Donald Trump a $1 billion dollar tax break, and the deficit goes up by $1 Billion.
For someone concerned about the deficit, you'd think you'd be able to put 2 and 2 together to realize that the tax cuts for the wealthy caused our deficit to soar.

In other words, would you rather have had the Bush tax cut or a budget surplus?

If you make $50K/year, Bush saved you about $1K/year in taxes.
Was it worth it to you?

By svenkesd on 5/12/2009 9:07:21 AM , Rating: 1
There is no "cost" of Bush's tax cuts.

There is a "cost" of having government programs. These costs are covered by taxes.

How you say it (and Nancy Pelosi) is like saying, "I let that guy walk away with $500 in his pocket, that cost me $500."

By sinful on 5/12/2009 2:27:30 PM , Rating: 2
There is no "cost" of Bush's tax cuts.

There is a "cost" of having government programs. These costs are covered by taxes.

Actually, you're wrong. Even with ZERO government spending (zero military, zero social spending), we'd still be running a massive deficit - INTEREST ON THE FEDERAL DEFICIT.

"In Fiscal Year 2008, the U. S. Government spent $412 Billion of your money on interest payments* to the holders of the National Debt. Compare that to NASA at $15 Billion, Education at $61 Billion, and Department of Transportation at $56 Billion. --"

As such, a tax cut without paying off the debt first costs us money.

By Steve Guilliot on 5/12/2009 6:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
Deficit = tax revenue - spending.

If you reduce revenue, you increase the deficit. That's probably what he meant by "cost".

By MrBungle123 on 5/12/2009 10:58:59 AM , Rating: 2
For someone concerned about the deficit, you'd think you'd be able to put 2 and 2 together to realize that the tax cuts for the wealthy caused our deficit to soar.

No, it didn't... It was spending... you know $700 Billion for TARP (passed by Dems signed by Bush) $165 Billion for 1st stimulus (passed by Dems signed by Bush), $780 Billion for "stimulus 2" (passed by Dems signed by Obama) Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/Auto Bailouts $400 Billion (Dems/Bush/Obama) pay attention much?

700 + 780 + 165 + 400 = $2,745 Billion (over the last year)
(assuming you're right about tax cuts [historically you're wrong because tax cuts stimulate economic activity which increase tax revenues over the long term] but for the sake of argument i'll give it to you anyway...)

2745 - 250 from tax cuts = $2495 Billion in the red.

Nope, sorry, raising taxes would not make up for $2.7 Trillion in lack of self control by leftist politicians

By Alexstarfire on 5/12/2009 8:16:31 PM , Rating: 1
True, but just because it doesn't completely fix the problem doesn't mean it doesn't help. Wow, too many doesn't in that sentence. Anyway, that's like saying you shouldn't use fix-a-flat if you get a flat tire in the middle of no where just because it doesn't completely fix the tire. Though I suppose a better analogy would be saying that you wouldn't plug a hole in a water pipe just because it doesn't stop water from spewing out.

Every little bit helps.

By ICE1966 on 5/19/2009 9:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
most taxes are payed by the rich

By Avitar on 5/18/2009 6:13:12 PM , Rating: 2
Nope we can not. Just as the Newt Gingrich boom will never be achknowleged and the 27 years will always be tailed to make what otherwise is a sea of failure look good. We live with a system where nothing is ever accomplished

Cherry pick the last 27 years when the Democrats have had control of the government as they do now for only Two years , 1993 and 1994. Compare the last twenty-seven years of Democrat control of the Whitehouse to the last twenty-seven years of Republican control of the Whitehouse and congress takes you back into the nineteenth century.

A great speaker like Newt Gingrich would have made any Republican President, since Herbert Hoover, look great. (Hoover was a Rino) That Bill Clinton went along to get along just proved that he was not a fool. That Newt Gingrich with help from the Internet revolution gave Clinton four of the balance budgets of the last century is the result of the Democtat Party LOOSING.

By SilthDraeth on 5/12/2009 9:51:46 AM , Rating: 2
You took the numbers out of context. If you look at them again, you will notice that:

1. The time frame listed, republicans were in office more years.
2. Both sides increased spending. 9% roughly for Dem, and 12% roughly for Rep.
3. Congress is responsible for the budgets. Where is the table with who controlled congress during these time frames?
4. It doesn't matter which "side" is in control, the fact is, that our Federal Government has been failing this country for decades. There is no accountability in politics. It all becomes he said she said debates, and arguing over who spent what wear. Reminds me of angry spouses fighting about a shared bank account.

By Armassault on 5/13/2009 7:34:36 AM , Rating: 2
By ICE1966 on 5/19/2009 9:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
Please, get a life. I work during the clinton administration and I can tell you that I payed thru the nose in federal income tax. Democrats have always raised taxes on the working american and on businesses. I had to work over time and alot of it just to bring home any thing close to a decent wage under dumbass Bill. Obama is going to put the US under such a tax burden that it will make the Bush years look like a cakewalk. After all, who is going to pay for all this help he is going to give america, the tax payer. If you put a democrat in office they raise taxes to cover up thier massive spending. The last laugh in this story will be on those who voted Obama in the whitehouse. always be careful what you ask for, you just may get it. BTW, to hell with universal healthcare.

By Motoman on 5/11/2009 11:27:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well, perhaps...

...but this is one very sound decision in my eyes, regardless of how the PR works out.

Hydrogen is the fuel of the future - and always will be.

By therealnickdanger on 5/11/2009 11:39:54 AM , Rating: 3
spend trillions on things the vast majority of the country doesn't want

Well, hold on a second. To be fair, the majority of the country voted for the guy. I think the problem is that a lot of people got emotionally swept up in voting for his elaborate promises without thinking about how such promises would be accomplished. Now that Team-O is in a frenzy of printing money and power-grabbing, even the die-hards are starting to ask, "WTF".

Before the election, I tried to get many of my liberal friends to understand this basic quote, "Be careful what you wish for, for you may get it." I knew full well that the liberal-controlled congress of the past 6 years would go on a shopping spree if Obama won. I knew that the pork-fest would not end (even if McCain had won). A lot of us knew, but we were called "negative", "partisan", or even "racist" because we wouldn't drink the Kool-Aid and worship Obama without question. I consider myself a fair person, but c'mon, who didn't see this coming?

I can't help but quote the great Rev. Wright. "America's chickens are coming home to roost!"


By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 11:50:41 AM , Rating: 2

spend trillions on things the vast majority of the country doesn't want

Well, hold on a second. To be fair, the majority of the country voted for the guy.

There is a disconnect between Obama and his policies. While his approval rating has been hovering around 60% the opionion of the policies he is pushing is far lower.

By kfonda on 5/11/2009 12:13:56 PM , Rating: 3
Well, hold on a second. To be fair, the majority of the country voted for the guy.

Actually just under 70 million of the approximately 210 million eligible voters voted for him.

By DEVGRU on 5/11/2009 12:40:18 PM , Rating: 2
Well, hold on a second. To be fair, the majority of the country voted for the guy. I think the problem is that a lot of people got emotionally swept up in voting for his elaborate promises without thinking about how such promises would be accomplished. Now that Team-O is in a frenzy of printing money and power-grabbing, even the die-hards are starting to ask, "WTF".

Thats because the majority of the country are un-educated retards that believe in fairy tales and can really get behind power words, like "change" - without having two brain cells to rub together to then ask, "What kind of change?". People voted him into office under the auspices of racism and charisma, without caring about a single rational thought like, I dunno, geee... what kind of leadership experience he has. Surprise! ZERO. And now its showing.

By hardapple on 5/11/2009 1:35:32 PM , Rating: 3
I guess Steven Chu, Obama's Energy Secretary, is one of those "un-educated retards" (BTW, the word "uneducated" isn't hyphenated). He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997 and was also the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Chu is almost certainly the man who made the decision to stop funding hydrogen vehicles. I guess he just didn't have the appetite for investing TRILLIONS in a hydrogen infrastructure.

By Rhaido on 5/11/09, Rating: -1
By hardapple on 5/12/2009 12:40:20 AM , Rating: 2
I guess an "educated retard" is any person with an education that disagrees with you. Winning a Nobel Prize in physics is no joke. It doesn't automatically confer god-like impunity to his opinions, but it does make him somewhat immune to the charge of "retard".

By lightfoot on 5/12/2009 7:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
Winning a Nobel Prize ... is no joke.

Unless you're Al Gore. Then it's a damn funny one.

By clovell on 5/11/2009 3:24:23 PM , Rating: 4
Did you not read the article? This has nothing to do with spending trillions on infrastructure. It has to do with a roughly $100 million cut in research spending. You're putting the cart ahead of the horse here.

By hardapple on 5/12/2009 12:30:29 AM , Rating: 2
So we're not spending the $100 million because Chu knows that even if the research was successful -- even if we had the perfect hydrogen car -- it would still require trillions to create the hydrogen infrastructure necessary to make that car go. The money is better spent on more feasible energy solutions, like cellulosic ethanol.

By Black69ta on 5/12/2009 2:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, Light the Bulbs! and Sound the Klaxon!

Someone here finally pointed out what many here seem to miss.

A billion dollar hydrogen car is perfect only if you make it have the means to extract the hydrogen out of the air, or maybe water from home(but that compound water shortage problems). Otherwise infrastructure has to come first. Personally I see small Car sized Fusion Reactors before Hydrogen stations since a reactor would not need refueled constantly.

By clovell on 5/12/2009 2:50:48 PM , Rating: 2

The reality is that we don't have the perfect hydrogen car right now. The reality is that we can expect infrastructure technology to scale as vehicle technology does. The reality is that we don't have to deploy this now.

So all this talk of how 'we don't have the money for all that right now' is meaningless because nobody is asking us to pay for it all now.

By jrb531 on 5/12/2009 12:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
There is enough uneducated retards on BOTH sides.

The real problem is that BOTH sides continue to get away with diverting our attention from REAL issues and back onto crap.

8 years of Republicans - NOTHING done!
8 years of Democrats - NOTHING done!

Yet each side continues to allow themselves to be played off against each other while BOTH sides screw us over.

So keep yacking at each other and pointing fingers... the reality is that we get what we deserve. We're all too stupid to realize that we're all Americans and while we make have different ideas on how to fix things... the same few things have been broken for 30+ years and instead of coming together to fix them... we keep pointing fingers at the other side.

1. Health Care - it IS broken and just because you may have coverage does not mean you should bury your head in the sand and say that it's not your problem.

2. Education - it IS broken when kids need to take out a mortgage just to go to school and when job pay often has very little to do with actual salery... well then something is seriously wrong.

3. Prescription Drugs - it IS broken when we are forced to subsidize the research for new drugs that other contries then pay 10 cents on the dollar. If the US pays for the research then the US gets the drugs until this is paid off or force other contries to contribute the same research dollars that we are forced to pay!

4. Social Security - it IS broken. Times change but people who rely on SS did what they were told. If you want to change the program then do so now but grandfather it in for new people... we should not go back on our word or promise made to so many years ago.

5. What about big business using bankrupcy as a means to break contracts. To use this as a tool to get out of obligations for your employees retirements is slimy, underhanded and just plain wrong. On one hand the fat cats are pulling in millions while screwing over the workers retirement! This sickens me!!!

So all of the above is the Democrats fault?
So all of the above is the Republicans fault?

Wake up everyone and start thinking for yourselves and stop listening to Fox or MSNCB!

By Lugaidster on 5/18/2009 10:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with most of your points.

3. Prescription Drugs - it IS broken when we are forced to subsidize the research for new drugs that other contries then pay 10 cents on the dollar. If the US pays for the research then the US gets the drugs until this is paid off or force other contries to contribute the same research dollars that we are forced to pay!

This I don't agree. Because it assumes that every prescription drug is researched in America. While many are, many aren't and doing what you said would mean that we also woudn't have access to the ones that are developed in other places. Or at least have to pay more for them.

What you have to do is to stop pharmacist companies from creating new drugs that are just copies from regular ones and charge 10 times as much.

By invidious on 5/11/2009 12:43:30 PM , Rating: 1
Well, hold on a second. To be fair, the majority of the country voted for the guy.

Uh no, a small majority of the people who voted voted for the guy. And most of them were poor people who didn't know what they were voting for beyond the first black president.

And I don't think this is what the educated people who voted for him had in mind when they voted for "hope". Let this be a lesson to all of the gullable fools.

By jrb531 on 5/12/09, Rating: 0
By Lugaidster on 5/18/2009 10:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
"The majority of people are fool" argument applies to every election. Maybe now the reason stupid people voted is different but it still doesn't mean that everyone that voted for him is stupid. To use that argument is as foolish as, in your own words, voting for Obama.

At some point you have to give you vote to some politician, if it turned out not to be what you expected then...

By Scabies on 5/11/2009 12:58:33 PM , Rating: 3
" 'Be careful what you wish for, for it may get you .' "
Fixed that for ya

By ap90033 on 5/11/2009 1:11:50 PM , Rating: 3
I agree 100%!!!
I knew this crap was going to happen. I also knew a large majority of voters were stupid and voted just becuase he was a good speaker and oh yeah he is black. Now we all will have to suffer while we wait for the next election. FYI kiddies, both parties are bad in some way you have to pick the lesser of the two evils. FYI dont fall for the lie that you need the government to do everything for you. Get a backbone, get an education and work hard and get what YOU want out of life. Just a thought but maybe they should have a few simple rules to allow a person to vote, a. be a Legal Citizen, b. cannot be on welfare (If you cant pay your own bills maybe you arent the best person in the world to pick the worlds most powerful leader), c. provide a legal ID like a driver license to PROVE you are who you say you are...

By Helbore on 5/11/2009 1:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
What you are suggesting reminds me of the old UK poll tax. That was when you had to pay a tax to vote. It was eventually repealed on the basis that it made the poor far less likely to vote and swayed elections in the rich's favour.

The problem with making claims like "you can't vote if you're on welfare" is that you are putting limitations on a citizen's right to be represented, based on the moral compass of others. Once you allow usch limitations to become a reality, you can kiss goodbye to democracy.

Unfortunatley, democracy favours the views of the majority. If the majority happen to be morons, then the country gets what it deserves. Want to stop morons voting in elections? Educate the morons and limit their numbers. For those that can't be educated, you just have to accept their right to vote in a way you don't like.

That's democracy. Live with it or go live in a dictatorship.

By Rhaido on 5/11/2009 3:04:09 PM , Rating: 3
Tyranny of the majority has always been a risk but let me remind people of a few things.
- As stated in the Federalist Papers, these united states federalized as a republic and not a democracy. At the time, democracy was a four letter word synonymous with mob rule. Hence, the etymology of demagogue.
- The Senate was meant to serve the best interest of the individual states and that is why U.S. senators were elected by each state legislature. The 17th amendment destroyed this function by allowing for the popular vote election.

By clovell on 5/11/2009 3:45:32 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, well, welcome to the 21st century. We have a right to vote, but we have to bring our license with us - which we had to pay money to get. We have a right to bear arms, but I have to pay a $25 fee to the Illinois State Police to get the ID for that. It's already being done, to a small extent.

But honestly, I think the country would be better off if we only let taxpayers vote. The founding fathers had the same idea - that only those who had a stake in this country would take care of it (Only landowners at that time could vote). This was not a violation of the principles of democracy, because the USA was and still is a Republic. It wasn't until these laws were used as a means of pure discrimination that this idea became a problem.

And maybe it's not the best idea, but I think it'd be better than where we're heading. There is no such thing as a subsized democracy - such conditions are equivalent to socialism. Were it as straightforward as educating 'morons', I think we'd all be in much better shape.

By Ryanman on 5/12/2009 9:03:20 AM , Rating: 2
subtle difference between not being able to feed yourself and not wanting to drop 30 dollars on an election that will probably just nullify your vote.
Has anyone ever actually thought of that? Poll taxes make people not want to vote, not because they can't afford it, but who would spend money on a system that doesn't have measurable results for an individual?
I live in Alabama, and I'm telling you right now I'd rather spend my money on a sandwich than waste my money paying a poll tax to vote for a Democrat here.

By ctodd on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
By Alexstarfire on 5/11/2009 9:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
What long process are you referring to about passports? I waited in line for 20 minutes and that was it, unless you want to count the 3-4 weeks it took me to get the passport in the mail.

By callmeroy on 5/12/2009 3:17:27 PM , Rating: 2
You know I always thought that its too easy for folks to vote for a, i sometimes think you should have to pass some kind of qualifying test and get like a "voter's certification" license before you are legally eligible to vote -- at least in a presidental election.

I know its all about "we the people" and they have to make it available to everyone for the sake of the spirit of the constitution and all that....but it just bothers me when I spend time reading up on both sides of the ticket - watching the debates each time and really thinking about the issues before I cast my vote...then you folks that vote on pure emotions alone....

By foolsgambit11 on 5/11/2009 12:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
Electric vehicle deployment has got to be closer than hydrogen fuel cells. There is already a fuel distribution system for electric cars - the power grid (although it may need beefing up). Storage could use some improvements. There is no issue with improving the efficiency of the fuel conversion into electricity, since it already is electricity.

Of course, electric cars are already out on the roads in some places. They aren't as versatile as an IC vehicle, without doubt. But a large scale deployment could be achieved in urban settings with almost no additional technological breakthroughs. It would costly. But making technology affordable is worlds closer to market than making technology feasible.

As for "running our country off just solar and wind energy", did Obama claim he wants that? I missed that. He definitely wants renewables to be a greater portion of the power grid sources. That is achievable today, depending on what your target percentage total power is.

...spend trillions on things the vast majority of the country doesn't want.
Of course. The vast majority of the country doesn't want banks. Or American-owned car companies. Okay, I personally couldn't care less what country owns the company, as long as they make the cars in the US so that there are US jobs. But it seems most people want GM to survive.

By invidious on 5/11/2009 12:59:31 PM , Rating: 2
But it seems most people want GM to survive.

Most people don't know what is good for them, thats why we have a representative government. Popularity can't be used to justify political action, especially not when the popular considered has a huge stake in the outcome.

By poundsmack on 5/11/2009 1:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
I find it interesting that the powers that be want so badly to introduce all electric cars, and there is now such a push and time crunch to do it so quickly (to qualify for more bail out funds), and yet no one has thought it through and realized it can’t be done for a few various reasons.

1. While there are gas stations everywhere, there are not chargers everywhere. In fact, there are only a few places that they are located and only in a few states.
2. Electricity isn’t free, and charging an electric car consumes a lot of power. Someone has to pay for it, but no one seems to have thought up a system for how they would bill people for charging their cars. Furthermore, if they had these charging stations plugs on the outside of houses and buildings and didn’t require authentication, power theft would run ramped.
3. They just standardized a universal plug for all these vehicles (Europe has a different one). One would have thought that might have been the first then they thought of, but I suppose not in this case.
4. The primary way to generate electricity in the USA is to burn oil and coal, neither of which are very environmentally friendly. The amount of extra power needed to be produced to accommodate a massive shift to electric vehicles would actually be worse for the planet than leaving the gas powered vehicles on the road (many of which are coming out near the zero emissions mark these days), as many (most) of our nations power plants (and our very old power grid) are not nearly as echo friendly.
5. This is the biggest issue that no one seems to have brought up. These cars will use 440 watt plugs that draw constant electricity from the outlet. By comparison, your air conditioner, washer, and dryer only use 220 watts and rarely need all that power at ones, even the AC units. Most of the US, but primarily California (where this is ironically the biggest push for these vehicles), currently has PG&E regulating peoples air conditioners in the summer and has frequent brownouts or blackouts due to over loads in the power grid. Has anyone wondered what it would be like to throw a few million cars charging at the same time after everyone gets home from a 9 to 5 work day on the power grid and see if it could even handle it? the car would require at least 2 times the amount of power of an AC unit set to 65 degrees to recharge the battery in a timely fashion.

neither electric or hydrogen are close enough to be viable long term solutions. the difference is, with hydrogen fules cells the "future proof" concept is much better. Improvements to how much electricity a battery can hold haven't come along way in 1- to 20 years(not including the recently created bio batteries, still in research phase).

I still think hydrogen is the way to go, it has more potential in the long run, even though it has some current short commings. until then why not juse use algae produced diesel. its clean and it doest rob the planet of much recourses like gowring crops does to the soil.

By Steele on 5/11/2009 1:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
watts =/= volts

By tjr508 on 5/11/2009 2:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
There's that and 220 and 440 aren't even American supplied voltages. Perhaps he means 240/120 or 480Y/277 or 240Y/139?

By Steele on 5/11/2009 2:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
And while we're on the subject, my dryer is 240, but my washer is on 120VAC.

By Alexstarfire on 5/11/2009 9:38:46 PM , Rating: 2
I can certainly perceive #5 as being a problem, but it wasn't until I read your post that I actually thought about it. Power itself isn't the problem, since we can just build more power plants. Yes it's going to take several years to make them, but we wouldn't be switching to electric vehicles overnight so it's not as bad as it sounds. And saying coal and oil power plants are worse than cars is just as dumb as saying that cars are approaching the zero emissions barrier. Certain cars might be closer than others, but none are remotely near it. And these oil and coal power plants are getting far closer to zero emissions than cars, comparatively speaking of course. I suggest you do a bit of research before you actually make sweeping assumptions.

#2 wouldn't be as bad as you think. I mean, it's far easier to steal gas from someone's car than it is to run a cable from their outlet, even if it is outside, or to park your car at their house for hours on end. As stealing gas isn't very rampant I don't see why electricity would be any different. If anything energy, gas vs electricity in this case, theft would be less on electric than for gas. Hard to say though since I'm assuming current electricity prices. If prices spike for some reason that could change dramatically, much like how stealing gas after hurricane Katrina skyrocketed. They actually had several stories about that on the news back then.

The worst part to me is that because just about everyone who owns an electric vehicle is going to be charging them at night that pretty much the entire day is going to be "peak hours." Pricing for electricity will have to change.

By waffle911 on 5/12/2009 7:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
power theft would run rampant .

Fixed that for you (for real).

And, you'd have to have a long enough power cord. It'd be pretty conspicuous. It would probably just be a regular power plug or something that you would have in your garage where other people shouldn't have access anyway. And if you didn't have a garage, I would think a power cord leading over the fence to the neighbor's yard would be fairly conspicuous. And before you say, "well what about burying it and routing it under the fence?" I say because the neighbor would have to be on your property for a length of time within which he would likely be caught.

Also, your argument for #5 is deeply flawed. As said by one guy above, watts ? volts. The electric standard in the U.S. is 120V from an outlet (although depending n local it can be anywhere between 110V and 140V), or 240V from both combined. Watts = Volts x Amps, and amps for any device can be as much or as little as the wiring in your house can handle. Hence, we can run a microwave, typically 1000W, or a hair dryer, 500W, or your computer, which for a desktop can be anywhere from 250W for a basic one to 1200W for a really insane rig.
Althogh, I am interested in where you read what type of power connector these things would use. If you're going off of the ones in Europe, I believe it's basically two 220V or 240V leads put together to make 440V or 480V, respectively.
Volts = total volume of energy at any given point in a circuit, Amps = speed of energy being conducted, Watts = rate at which energy is expended, which as said above is volts x amps.

As it is, you never covered the most basic problem with switching over to electric cars. You can fill a regular gas tank in about 5 minutes. You can only charge today's large batteries in about 5 hours. The Chevy Volt bridges this gap by using gasoline to power a back-up generator when the batteries run dry, while still allowing you to charge up at home overnight (when variable energy prices are at their lowest due to decreased demand).

And as for #2, how do you think the power company charges you for the electricity you use every month? Electricity is electricity, why pay for it differently for your car than you would your house? (It's measured in kilowatt hours, kWh, which breaks down to the amount of energy expended when consuming one thousand watts over the span of one hour. Think of it like the opposite of relationship of distance and speed: 1kW is to 1 km/h as 1kWh is to 1km. The relationship is sort of backwards. Or, like an equation where a kilowatt is A and kilometer is B, hour is H [all assuming they were comparable finite numbers without contextual meaning], A:B/H as AH:B [I use the colon to mean "is relative to" as I do not know how to type the correct symbol for that]).

On a side note, as an English Nazi, it really irks me how few people understand the difference between ramp-ed and ramp-ant, jut because it sounds vaguely like "ramped" in quick verbal discussion. Let's bar anyone who doesn't know how to spell "rampant" correctly from voting! :P

By randomly on 5/14/2009 10:14:25 AM , Rating: 2
1) There is no need for chargers everywhere with the plug-in hybrid approach such as the Volt. The car is charged overnight at the home giving a 40 mile range for the daily commute. If you need to go farther than that or on an extended trip you just use gasoline from available stations to run the onboard generator (still giving you 50 miles/gal). 40 Mile daily range covers more than 80% of the peoples needs.

2)No electricity is not free, but fixed electrical power stations are much more efficient systems than automobiles at energy conversion. Billing for a home charger is the same as billing for the home electricity. Why would power theft be rampant? You would need to park your car next to somebodies house and connect up to it to charge your batteries (saving yourself roughly $1 in power costs for that day since that's all the power the car can hold). All at the risk of being caught? The risk vs rewards are terrible. Besides victims will respond to power theft problems and find solutions to protect themselves if they are vulnerable to theft. The power theft concern is ludicrous.

3)Since electric or even plug-in hybrid cars are not widely deployed yet, there was no rush to come up with a design years before it would be needed. I fail to see a valid objection.

4)Coal provides 49% of the electrical energy in the US, Nuclear 20%, Natural Gas 20%, the rest is hydro and other. However about twice as much oil is used as coal to fulfill transportation needs. Transitioning to use of electrical power for vehicles obviously reduces the consumption of oil. The much higher efficiency of energy generation in fixed power plants and using that energy in cars even with system losses means a higher overall efficiency. Pollution per kwh of energy generated can also be substantially better with fixed power stations because of the higher efficiency and ability to implement scrubbers and even carbon capture systems.
Your assertion that electric vehicles would be worse for the planet than gas powered vehicles is unsupported by the facts. Doing some research on the subjects will help you from making such flawed statements in the future.

5) Unfortunately here you don't have a understanding of how the systems actually work. a)The chargers for plugin hybrids do not need to run on 440V systems, although it's a bit more efficient to do so. b)They don't draw power all the time, only when the car is plugged in and is not fully charged. c) In hot climates your air conditioner or heatpump will probably be operating more of the time than the car charger. d)Car charging should be scheduled for night time hours when the grid load is roughly half of the daytime peak. This is actually an advantage since it will reduce the high and low variation of the power grid and allow more use of baseload power generation which is more efficient and more cost effective than peak power systems.

Will the power grid need upgrades as more electric vehicles come online? Certainly, but in an incremental manner. A smart charger system that can timed and controlled by the electric utility to manage the grid loads would also be extremely helpful in managing the power. These are all certainly doable.

Your comparison of a car charger to a home AC unit is just guess work. You've given so little information on the size of the AC unit, size of house, outside temperatures etc. that the power used could span several orders of magnitude. The comparison is meaningless.
For some real data points let's take the Volt car. 8 KwH to fully charge the battery pack. That's about $1 worth of electricity. If you charged over 8 hours that's only a 1 Kw draw or equivalent to 1.5 HP pool pump. That's 1/3 of the power needed by a 5 Ton air conditioning unit.

Hydrogen fuel cells for cars is not a very viable approach unfortunately. The only efficient means of producing hydrogen is by reformation of natural gas at around 80%. This doesn't get rid of the need for fossil fuels at all, just shifts it to a different place. Hydrogen production via electrolysis is only about 50% efficient, and with fuel cells only around 50% efficient a hydrogen fuel cell car is 3x-4x less efficient than a battery powered vehicle. Therefore powering a Hydrogen car off a source of electricity is highly inefficient and not economical. An MIT study pointed out that even with projected improvements in electrolyzers and fuel cells that even by 2020 a simple diesel hybrid car would still be more efficient well to wheels than a hydrogen fuel cell car. This is not to mention the major technical and cost problems with fuel cells. Nor the need for an enormous and massively expensive hydrogen fueling infrastructure.

The bottom line is that if you have a source of electrical power there are always better uses for the electricity than wasting it on making hydrogen fuel.

By captainpierce on 5/11/2009 1:48:14 PM , Rating: 5
We want privately owned car companies and banks. Not zombie institutions kept alive with tax dollars.

By foolsgambit11 on 5/11/2009 2:11:55 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, me too. But that wasn't an option. Or, rather, it was, if you were willing to risk the US economy looking as dysfunctional as Bulgaria's (my apologies if Bulgaria actually has a wonderfully run economy. You know what I meant). Given a choice between maintaining our standard of living and clinging to hyper-capitalism (which is the choice we were given), I choose a prosperous America.

Of course, you could argue that there was no threat of economic disaster - but the current economic state argues that there is - or that the bailouts didn't help (I leave that to experts). But doing nothing was definitely a bad idea (that was Hoover's plan for the Great Depression). The bailouts definitely could have been executed better. I think everybody agrees to that. But letting capitalist principles trump real-world pragmatics is a path to certain disaster.

By captainpierce on 5/11/2009 3:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
There is a well-known process called bankruptcy (which Chrysler is finally taking advantage of). For the banks, being put into FDIC receivership was a better option. This is why we have bankruptcy laws and courts.

It's pretty obvious the bailouts have done nothing but waste money that the country didn't have and introduced even more corruption and moral hazard into the financial system.

Pain in the short term may have been avoided. However, propping up failed companies and institutes is not going to bring prosperity back.

For the record, Hoover was not a do nothing. He was an interventionist, despite what many think. Hoover tried to fight the depression in much the same way Roosevelt did. Warren Harding was the one who did not intervene and believe it or not the depression he encountered ended faster and led to the roaring twenties.

By Rhaido on 5/11/2009 5:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
"Laissez-faire, then, was the policy dictated both by sound theory and by historical precedent. But in 1929, the sound course was rudely brushed aside. Led by President Hoover, the government embarked on what Anderson has accurately called the 'Hoover New Deal.' For if we define 'New Deal' as an antidepression program marked by extensive governmental economic planning and intervention — including bolstering of wage rates and prices, expansion of credit, propping up of weak firms, and increased government spending (e.g., subsidies to unemployment and public works) — Herbert Clark Hoover must be considered the founder of the New Deal in America. Hoover, from the very start of the depression, set his course unerringly toward the violation of all the laissez-faire canons. As a consequence, he left office with the economy at the depths of an unprecedented depression, with no recovery in sight after three and a half years, and with unemployment at the terrible and unprecedented rate of 25 percent of the labor force.

Hoover's role as founder of a revolutionary program of government planning to combat depression has been unjustly neglected by historians. Franklin D. Roosevelt, in large part, merely elaborated the policies laid down by his predecessor. To scoff at Hoover's tragic failure to cure the depression as a typical example of laissez-faire is drastically to misread the historical record. The Hoover rout must be set down as a failure of government planning and not of the free market. To portray the interventionist efforts of the Hoover administration to cure the depression, we may quote Hoover's own summary of his program, during his presidential campaign in the fall of 1932:

'We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action…. No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times…. For the first time in the history of depression, dividends, profits, and the cost of living, have been reduced before wages have suffered…. They were maintained until the cost of living had decreased and the profits had practically vanished. They are now the highest real wages in the world.

Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system a new breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for … "the common run of men and women." Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom…. We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction.'[2]"

Why do so many fools continue to repeat the Big Lies they hear when truth is literally at their fingertips?

By foolsgambit11 on 5/12/2009 4:56:51 PM , Rating: 2
Why do so many people feel that a single artile from a libertarian economic thinktank outweighs decades of popular understanding? Really, anybody who would argue (as that article does) that doing absolutely nothing in response to the Great Depression would have been the best strategy is obviously blinded by ideology.

From Encarta:
The initial government response to the Great Depression was ineffective, as President Hoover insisted that the economy was sound and that prosperity would soon return. Hoover believed the basic need was to restore public confidence so businesses would begin to invest and expand production, providing jobs and income to restore the economy to health. But business owners saw no reason to increase production while unsold goods clogged their shelves. By 1932 investment had dropped to less than 5 percent of its 1929 level.

Convinced that a balanced federal budget was essential to restoring business confidence, Hoover sought to cut government spending and raise taxes. But in the face of a collapsing economy, this served only to reduce demand further. As conditions worsened, Hoover’s administration eventually provided emergency loans to banks and industry, expanded public works, and helped states offer relief. But it was too little, too late.

The epitome of a “self-made man,” Hoover believed in individualism and self-reliance. As more and more Americans lost jobs and faced hunger, Hoover asserted that “mutual self-help through voluntary giving” was the way to meet people’s needs. Private giving increased greatly, reaching a record high in 1932, but charitable organizations were overwhelmed by the enormous number of people in need. To many, government assistance seemed the only answer, but Hoover was convinced that giving federal relief payments would undermine recipients’ self-reliance, and he resisted this step throughout his term.


Hoover and most of his Republican Party firmly supported protective tariffs to block imports and stimulate the American economy by increasing sales of American-made products. In 1930 they enacted the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, which established the highest average tariff in American history. This was a crushing blow to European economies, which were already sinking into depression. Other nations retaliated by raising their own tariffs. This action helped to worsen and spread the depression by choking off international trade. Between 1929 and 1932 the total value of world trade had declined by more than half.
It's not that Hoover did nothing, it's that Hoover didn't do the right things. Your article tries to make Hoover's volunteerism policies out to be real action, but I equate that to Bush telling people to go shopping after 9/11. That's not government action.

Missteps (an R means it's a modern Republican deficiency, a D means it's a modern Democratic deficiency, and BD stands for "blue dog"):
Refusing to acknowledge the extent of the problem (R)
Worrying about a balanced budget rather than ensuring government did everything it could (R&(BD)D)
Providing emergency loans to banks after it was too late(R&D)
Worrying that government help getting people on their feet would destroy self-reliance (R)
Economic protectionism (D)

Nobody's got the perfect plan, but government action is necessary. Your article mentions how some minor recessions or depressions were 'cured' without government action, but fails to mention the kind of America that inaction created, or the hardships that half of America had to bear, not just during, but also after, those downturns. Even if government inaction could make the economy return to growth quicker, the quality of life and economic equality for the people in that economy doesn't bounce back.

By MrBungle123 on 5/12/2009 5:20:29 PM , Rating: 2
Here's where Hoover went wrong:
Hoover sought to cut government spending and raise taxes . But in the face of a collapsing economy, this served only to reduce demand further.

A balanced budget is necessary because it keeps us from going further into debt... during recessions/depressions the value of the currency is deflating which makes it much harder to pay the debt off later. The higher tax rates on a deflated currency will extend the economic downturn.

Raising taxes pulled more money out of an already struggling private sector which is why demand went down.

Our current government is making the same mistake only worse:

They are adding trillions to the debt, while effectively raising taxes (allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire).

If that is what the government is going to do we would be better off with them doing nothing. Doing nothing is much better than doing the wrong things.

By captainpierce on 5/13/2009 1:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
Why do so many people feel that a single article from a libertarian economic think tank outweighs decades of popular understanding?

Popular understanding about the depression is built on the myth that Hoover was an ineffectual leader who didn't want to act and FDR was a savior with his New Deal. If so, why did the downturn continue to get worse under FDR? It is because his interventionism, like Hoover's, made things worse.

Many economists besides libertarian think tanks have come around to believing that government intervention in the depression made things worse. The Federal Reserve's tight money policy was what made the downturn a depression. Trying to fight it with public works, tax hikes, subsidies and the like was futile.

If you really want government to do something, how about this. Suspend capital gains taxes, lower the corporate tax rate and freeze discretionary spending so we don't have to inflate and borrow our way out of the problem.

By omnicronx on 5/11/2009 1:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
Are you trying to imply that deployment of hydrogen vehicles is any more ready?

Obama did save you money! The deployment costs alone would have ended up costing the public billions of not trillions of dollars. You are not going to see Gas stations around the US suddenly switch over to hydrogen without demand.

On the other hand electric vehicles do not need this to kickstart sales. Home recharge stations will get the market going, and once it does business owners will put money into infrastructure.

Obama did the right thing, he chose an industry and is sticking to it. It will not help us in the slightest to have three or four alternative power sources competing against each other.

Furthermore is currently produced in two ways, (from natural gas or wind ) neither of which have the potential to be cost effective compared to electric vehicles.

By Nakecat on 5/11/2009 11:43:02 AM , Rating: 1
It's ExxonMobil's Messiah...So they can make even more money this year to beat last year's 45 billion profit.

By tjr508 on 5/11/2009 11:54:19 AM , Rating: 5
Ya screw those big American energy companies who have innovated for over a hundred years to solve each and every (real, not made up or speculated) energy crisis over the last century while meeting the energy needs of the entire world at reasonable prices. I mean life would be soooo much better without them......

By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 12:40:51 PM , Rating: 5
and damn them for taking their 45 billion a quarter and paying dividends which increased stock prices resulting in more valuable 401k's and in some cases even put money directly into the bank accounts of retired people!

By oab on 5/11/2009 11:50:36 AM , Rating: 3
Obama did not give $5 billion to ACORN. That is a right-wing conspiracy (lead by boss Limbaugh) idea.

Good video.

I live in the queen of england conspiracy country.

By mdogs444 on 5/11/2009 11:58:01 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, the same people who voted for the stimulus bill (democrats) and put the language in the bill for it were the same ones who all voted against a bill by Republicans to never give funds to ACORN again.

Hmm, wonder why?

By foolsgambit11 on 5/11/2009 12:22:35 PM , Rating: 1
Do you know what the language in the bill is?

All the money goes to state and local governments. They get to decide who gets the money, based on certain criteria set out in the bill. In other words, ACORN gets money only if state and local governments decide they want to give them money.

You want to keep state and local governments from giving money to ACORN? Don't you think the state and local governments know what organizations will best serve their community? Are you against States' Rights?!?!?!?

By tjr508 on 5/11/2009 1:28:47 PM , Rating: 3
I think it's more like stealing from the State's citizens and turning around and telling them that they can have some of it back as long as they play by some new rules.

It should be illegal but the precedent has already been set by Clinton and his automotive and DWI reforms and then hammered down solid by Busch and his education reforms.

By mikefarinha on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
By plowak on 5/11/2009 12:34:59 PM , Rating: 3
Blahhhhh......please, not while I'm drinking coffee!

By foolsgambit11 on 5/11/2009 12:49:31 PM , Rating: 1
Non-partisan like Dick Armey's tea-baggers on April 15th? Non-partisan like the town hall meetings some (Republican) politicians put on a week or two ago?

Technically, ACORN is non-partisan. ACORN 'sides' with Democrats because of ideology, not because of partisanship. They don't tell people how to vote. They register people to vote. If the people they register tend to vote Democrat, it's not because ACORN is at fault, but because the Republican Party is at fault. If the Republican Party's message and actions appealed to poor minorities, then ACORN would be registering more Republican voters.

By birdshot80 on 5/11/2009 2:13:10 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see what your point is unless you are suggesting that the so called "Tea Parties" were government (tax payer) funded. There is nothing wrong with being partisan unless you are funded by tax payer dollars in which case you are expected not to show favoritism.

By foolsgambit11 on 5/11/2009 3:06:24 PM , Rating: 1
In that case, refer to paragraph 2. ACORN's actions are not partisan, any more than Welfare is partisan because it goes to poor, out-of-work people. The Army isn't partisan just because most of the people who work there are Republicans.

By foolsgambit11 on 5/11/2009 6:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
And what is the favoritism that ACORN is showing? That's the missing point in your argument.

By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 12:33:37 PM , Rating: 3
There is about $4.2 Billion in the bill is appropriated toward "neighborhood stabilization activities" of which ACORN although not specifically mentioned in the text would be qualified to receive.

Senate Amendment 107 Proposed by Senator Vitter [R-LA] on Feb 3, 2009 would have prohibited direct or indirect use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) but was rejected Feb 6, 2009 by a vote of 45 to 51.

By sgw2n5 on 5/11/2009 1:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
Before 2009, ACORN's biggest proponent in the senate was.............. John McCain.

But that's no reason for you not to act all butthurt though.

By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 1:40:14 PM , Rating: 4
That doesn't supprise me I started disliking McCain back in 2004 when he went along with Bush's push for amnesty for illegal aliens.

McCain is a RINO (republican in name only), he claims to be conservative but hes more center left than anything. He was merely relatively right when compared to the extreme leftist Obama in the last campaign.

By hardapple on 5/11/2009 1:19:15 PM , Rating: 1
Please stop repeating the lie that Obama gave $5 billion to ACORN.

Even if what you were saying is true, it has nothing to do with the subject of the article.

By therealnickdanger on 5/11/2009 4:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, he didn't give it directly to ACORN, but that $5b of funding is still a big waste of money - much bigger than investing in hydrogen IMO. I didn't want to derive anything else from that comment other than to express what a trivial amount $100m has become in these crazy days of spending.

Feel free to fill in the $5b blank with anything else from the un-stimulus package if it makes you feel better. It's all excessive BS spending.

By 2bits on 5/12/2009 7:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
No no don't change the subject now. One of you righties got caught repeating a lie. Now own it.

The implication has always been that Obama was handing $5B their way as thanks for pushing the election his way. It's all a lie, but being convenient to the right, they keep bringing it up.

By Major HooHaa on 5/13/2009 7:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
That is such a shame. Here is a vehicle that produces nothing but water vapour from its exhaust and Honda actually built a fully working family car, powered by hydrogen.

The British T.V. Car Programme "Top Gear" came out to California and tested the car (The Honda Clarity). They were very impressed and those petrol-heads admitted that it could be the future and could solve the problems of car pollution.

See the review on You Tube here...

Honda clarity Fuel Cell car TEST drive

They also said that there are far less moving parts, so the hydrogen fuel cell car won't need servicing so often.

But the West has now run out of money... The car manufactures are focusing on switching to battery and hybrid electric cars.

So first there were cars produced by hydrocarbon fuels. Now there is the hybrid\electric powered cars and the hydrogen powered cars may have to wait a while longer... As long as the science adds up with all this.

By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 5/11/2009 10:39:56 AM , Rating: 1
So much for hope and change. Line those pockets Barack!

RE: I thought Bush was the Oil Industry's puppet
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 11:03:30 AM , Rating: 1
Except BO is lining the solar, wind, and electric companies pockets.

By Master Kenobi on 5/11/2009 11:14:41 AM , Rating: 5
which is also largely owned by the Oil companies. Energy companies across the board are all owned by each other.

By MrBungle123 on 5/11/2009 11:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
Last I heard GE stood to gain the most by pushing solar and wind power.

By Master Kenobi on 5/11/2009 1:38:49 PM , Rating: 4
That's mostly because GE owns the patents on much of the technologies involved in their construction as well as the design of most types of wind/solar generators.

RE: I thought Bush was the Oil Industry's puppet
By 67STANG on 5/11/2009 2:45:20 PM , Rating: 2
Except for the fact that I work for a wind company and we have received a single penny....

RE: I thought Bush was the Oil Industry's puppet
By 67STANG on 5/11/2009 2:46:36 PM , Rating: 3

I wish there was an edit function... seriously, it's 2009 DT...

RE: I thought Bush was the Oil Industry's puppet
By freeagle on 5/11/2009 3:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
Not having an edit feature has (at least I see them) reasons. You could erase or completely change your post, and every reply and vote would thus become meaningless. Maybe allowing just one edit for a post and limit of ~5 changed characters?

By marvdmartian on 5/11/2009 4:15:13 PM , Rating: 3
Or, better yet, limit the editing to within 5 minutes of the original posting. Should keep the majority of the "I never said that" types from editing their original statements.

By Zoomer on 5/11/2009 6:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
Wiki type revision history. Enough said.

By nixoofta on 5/11/2009 3:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
Think of the arguments though.

"But you said"

Text"nuh-unh, that's not what I said,...I said,..."

"and then I said,.."

By 2bits on 5/12/2009 7:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
How can that be? Are you saying that FIT is wrong? Shock and awe.

RE: I thought Bush was the Oil Industry's puppet
By odessit740 on 5/11/2009 12:42:12 PM , Rating: 5
You know who's got major investments in alternative solar energy... Nancy Pelosi. Yep, the same people who helped Obama get elected are now getting wealthier while the rest of the country is succumbing to a major recession.

How does a first term senator who didn't even complete a single term in the senate become president? He really must be this brilliant messiah type figure, being practically a nobody, compared to established career politicians, to win that race.

The 'unnecessary' projects are being cut and the ones which are making Obama's funders wealthier are indeed getting funds. Democratitions, Republicatitions, they're all politicians and someone owes someone else their seat, pay up they must.

By foolsgambit11 on 5/11/2009 1:12:05 PM , Rating: 1
Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois House of Representatives, and 2 years in the US House of Representatives - 12 years before his Presidency. Barack Obama served 8 years in the Illinois Senate, and 4 years in the US Senate. I'm not saying Barack Obama is on the same level as Abraham Lincoln, only that 'lack of experience' alone is not a reliable indicator of performance in the office of the President.

As for your claim that Speaker Pelosi has major renewable energy investments, could you provide some backing evidence? A quick search revealed nothing to me.

RE: I thought Bush was the Oil Industry's puppet
By Natfly on 5/11/2009 1:14:29 PM , Rating: 3
Here's took about 15 seconds of googling.

By foolsgambit11 on 5/11/2009 1:57:51 PM , Rating: 5
Thanks for the starting point. Given that article, I went to Pelosi's financial disclosure statement for 2007. She disclosed that her spouse purchased public common stock in Clean Energy Fuel Corp. (CLNE) The stock had an initial value of $50k-$100k and a value at the time of the disclosure of $100k-$250k. At IPO, it was a $12 stock, and it peaked at about $19 (which makes the actual maximum possible value under $160k). It's now a $9 stock.

Paul Pelosi is a successful investor. The financial disclosure statement also has listed his $5-25 million earnings from capital gains from, and partial sale of, Apple Corp. stock. And about a half-dozen real estate investments that earned $1-5 million each. To argue that Nancy Pelosi's husband's comparatively small time investment is somehow making her spend time and political capital on an issue she wouldn't support otherwise is a little ridiculous.

I had to do that research myself, because the link to the "investigation" in the article you linked was broken. I'm sure they put the investment in context, too. Not.

By the way, about your link: World News Daily is founded, run, and edited by Joseph Farah, who has a consistent and unabashed conservative bias, including co-authoring a book with Rush Limbaugh. Just an FYI.

We can evaluate plans for energy independence and clean energy on their merits, not based on conspiracy theories. Natural gas has certain distinct advantages, and certain deficits. Those can be discussed without baseless ad hominem attacks on prominent political supporters.

RE: I thought Bush was the Oil Industry's puppet
By Natfly on 5/11/2009 2:16:41 PM , Rating: 1
My bad for linking to WND; however, I don't see what it has to do with the facts, I was simply pointing out her (and husband's) investment. I simply googled "pelosi pickens" and that was the first result of many.

I agree that that these efforts and legislation should be valued based on their merits. But the fact is that she put herself in a conflict of interest.

By foolsgambit11 on 5/11/2009 3:41:44 PM , Rating: 3
Ah, my initial searches were for 'Pelosi solar', and didn't come up with much, since the issue is over natural gas. The OP got his facts a bit mixed up.

Linking to WND has to do with facts because they've failed to put proper context on the alleged conflict of interest. I'm surprised you still feel that there is a conflict of interest after I laid out the facts of the case. Again...

First, Pelosi didn't put herself in a conflict of interest. Her husband did. Saying she was at fault for the investment would be like saying it's Hillary's fault Bill lied about a BJ.

Second, the investment constituted an insignificant part of the Pelosis' investment portfolio. They've got almost $12 million invested in Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate, but I don't hear anybody claiming that the bailout was a conflict of interest. I mean, seriously, do you think $100k in a stock matters to someone with a net worth of (estimated) $60 million? That's less than 0.2% of her net worth.

We can't expect politicians to have absolutely no financial ties to any industry. To take a random example, Senator (or Senatrix, as I prefer) Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) has $250k-500k invested in Exxon Mobil, and $50k-100k in Chevron. She also posted the following on her Senate website:

This is perfectly natural, since offshore drilling is a Republican platform issue. I personally don't think the two have any real connection, even though Hutchison is a vocal proponent of drilling who has introduced legislation on the topic. Do you? If not, why would you think that Pelosi's smaller investments (both in real terms and as a percent of net worth) would create a conflict of interest? Note, too, that alternative fuels and energy independence are Democratic platform issues.

By jonmcc33 on 5/11/2009 5:04:30 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, he's lining my pockets by not wasting my tax dollars. Sounds good to me!

By Nighteye2 on 5/11/2009 5:32:40 PM , Rating: 3
There are better alternatives - Lithuim-ion batteries with sulfide, for example, can be frequently and rapidly recharged. Pure electric vehicles are possible, which can be coupled with solar and wind...

By 2bits on 5/12/2009 7:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
We can all argue whether 11M here, or 100M there is significant money saved, but since when did saving even a single dollar become a bad thing?

Which is it, do you want him to spend more or less?

Obama too short term?
By tjr508 on 5/11/2009 10:52:24 AM , Rating: 1
It looks to me like all of Obama's plans thus far focus on immediate results while completely ignoring long term effects. I think that this is just another example.

Hydrogen is a real alternative that could gradually replace ICEs on down the road, but could take decades to implement.
Electric vehicles are ready right now, but have a whole slew of long term problems relating to batteries. The current lithium situation looks far more bleak than the current oil situation if electric cars are to become mainstream.

Another long term advantage that hydrogen technology has over electric tech is that the added jobs would likely be American labor (Building pipelines, stations, pumps, fuel cells, tanks, hydrogen plants, etc.) rather than Bolivian miners and Chinese factory workers.

I won't even get into throwing billions of dollars at irresponsible banks/manufacturers/homeowners. Maybe we're only supposed to look at results now-a-days and forget about consequences.

RE: Obama too short term?
By FITCamaro on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: Obama too short term?
By Tsuwamono on 5/11/2009 11:31:43 AM , Rating: 4
oh gee. How terrible would it be if we lost what? 100 000 jobs at 8-9$ an hour. That would be a huge hit to our economy.....

Are you aware of how retarded you sound sometimes?

RE: Obama too short term?
By mdogs444 on 5/11/2009 11:44:32 AM , Rating: 3
How terrible would it be if we lost what? 100 000 jobs at 8-9$ an hour. That would be a huge hit to our economy.....

Well, considering a loss of GDP, an increase of people on unemployment and welfare....I'd have to say its not a good thing.

Maybe YOU can tell me what else we could do with 100,000 non skilled workers. Retrain them? Oh, you mean with the money I make after I paid to put myself through college?

RE: Obama too short term?
By Alexstarfire on 5/11/2009 12:25:35 PM , Rating: 4
We don't make electricity out of thin air. If we truly switched over to all-electric we're going to need people to man those power stations. I'm sure than even if only 1,000 of those people started working at a power station that they'd make more money than the 100,000 who work at gas stations. not to mention the thousands of electricians we'd need to upgrade our houses and the US power grid. Ohh, not to mention that we'd probably still have some kind of "gas" station. Probably change out batteries or something, as well as actually sell gasoline. Not like we stop using our old cars just because new ones come out anyway.

Sure, these 100,000 may be unskilled, but that is not our fault or problem. Perhaps if they had stayed in school and done better that they wouldn't be unskilled. And yes, I do realize that many of them probably are in school, but we have other jobs that don't need skilled-labor either.

RE: Obama too short term?
By menace on 5/11/2009 1:49:44 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sure than even if only 1,000 of those people started working at a power station that they'd make more money than the 100,000 who work at gas stations.

Dang, where do I sign up for that $900 an hour job ($1.8 million a year) at the power station. Do I get double time for working on holidays?

RE: Obama too short term?
By Alexstarfire on 5/12/2009 8:21:26 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I'm not even gonna lie. Totally fudged my math up when I posted.

RE: Obama too short term?
By FITCamaro on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: Obama too short term?
By Spuke on 5/11/2009 3:53:17 PM , Rating: 2
you have all the pumping stations, you have all the refineries employees, need I go on?
Although I found the previous posters comment to be retarded, not all of these jobs will be lost. You best believe the oil companies (or someone else) will have a hand in making money off of any new energy infrastructure. Electric, hydrogen or otherwise. You said yourself in another thread that the oil companies have invested money in alternative energy. And I doubt they'll just simply go out of business.

RE: Obama too short term?
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 4:39:56 PM , Rating: 2
Just because oil companies will make money, doesn't mean jobs won't be lost.

RE: Obama too short term?
By Laereom on 5/11/2009 5:20:06 PM , Rating: 3
That's capitalism, baby.

As long as it is being driven by unsubsidized consumer choice rather than government mandate, those jobs -should- go, as far as I'm concerned. That being said, it'd be a gradual process, and the beauty of markets is that as long as you don't screw with them *coughMinimumWageLawscough*, they can generally find something for people to do.

RE: Obama too short term?
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 7:05:02 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not arguing against capitalism. I'm against the government unfairly influencing which technologies succeed.

I favor algae produced diesel because I see it as the cheapest way to get off oil in a practical manner. It doesn't require extensive changes to the existing infrastructure. It is clean. It is much more viable than batteries and could be implemented far more easily and sooner.

RE: Obama too short term?
By 2bits on 5/12/2009 7:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
I thought giving money to corporations and the rich created jobs?

RE: Obama too short term?
By yomamafor1 on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: Obama too short term?
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 7:07:13 PM , Rating: 2
You're assuming that said cars are able to be charged in a reasonable amount of time. No ones going to go to a station they have to sit at for hours. No instead you'd have charging outlets at parking spaces of stores and at homes.

The only place for a charging station would be near highways but we're a long way off from electric vehicles suitable for long distance travel.

RE: Obama too short term?
By yomamafor1 on 5/11/2009 9:17:27 PM , Rating: 1
Using our current technology, yes. That's why I emphasized that battery limitation is a huge roadblock to mass electric vehicle adoption.

However, given that there are several promising breakthroughs in battery technology, it may not be too long before we see a suitable electric vehicle that can replace current gasoline engines. By that time, your arguments would have been obsolete anyway.

RE: Obama too short term?
By Spuke on 5/13/2009 2:41:44 PM , Rating: 2
However, given that there are several promising breakthroughs in battery technology,
Like what?

By that time, your arguments would have been obsolete anyway.
And then it wouldn't even matter because there would be no argument.

RE: Obama too short term?
By mikefarinha on 5/11/2009 12:27:52 PM , Rating: 3
Perhaps you suggest we go back to the horse and carriage mode of transportation so we can once again employ buggy whip manufactures?

RE: Obama too short term?
By sleepeeg3 on 5/11/2009 11:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
Baby steps. Hybrids may do little to cure the actual problem, but they will give us time to prevent a potential catastrophe in the near future. If we invest another 30 years of funding in research in hydrogen cells and discover that they will never pan out, we would be in a much graver situation.

RE: Obama too short term?
By tjr508 on 5/11/2009 11:30:52 AM , Rating: 2
Baby steps

I prefer to call them band-aids... or better yet: bubbles.

I can understand how with any job including the president, one wants to demonstrate results in the first few months of office, but consequences of these results are beyond catastrophic. It's scary to think how deep in poo our country really is if these band-aid fixes are really all we can do to keep it going.

Very dissappointed in this decision
By theArchMichael on 5/11/2009 11:52:18 AM , Rating: 5
I think Obama and secretary Chu need to reassess the use of hydrogen as a power source cause I have seen some really interesting stuff here on dailytech in the last year or two that deal with the PRODUCTION and TRANSPORT of hydrogen.

There was the article about the guys (at MIT i believe...) who were getting good results using special microbial bacteria to break down cellulose in plant material (ie grass clippings, compost material, banana skins and stuff) to produce hydrogen. Which would also in essence would be a sustainable, cheap and ecofriendly option for production. I don't even know if cheap is the word since most American have "access" to grass clippings and leaves from their yard.

Then there was all that work on multiple fronts using buckyballs to compress large bunches of hydrogen molecules so that it could be transported in liquid / semi-solid state without being in a super high pressure container.and wasting a lot of space and reducing the danger of transportation.

Look my point is this, I voted for Obama because he is a progressive reformer, and to me this is really a wasted opportunity to make an earnest attempt at solving one of the major conundrums of human kind for the last few centuries. That problem being safe, renewable, accessible, efficient energy production without the degradation of our environment. Just so you know, I'm not one of those "save the whales" green peace fanatics, but I do enjoy breathing fresh air.
Putting a man on the moonb seemed an insurmountable task also but when JFK made his speech at that Texas university, he had the courage to face his critics that didn't want to spend tax dollars for scientific research and exploration on behalf of the human race. JFK had the courage to take the bigger picture stance though in his speech that ended like this which I am sure many of you are familiar with. "...because the moon and the planets are there, because new hope for knowledge and peace are there. And therefore, as we set sail, we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked." (gets the chills).

Get it right Pres. Obama we need R&D money now more than ever, a trekkie should know and understand that technology is a way for us to solve many of our problems as a human race.

RE: Very dissappointed in this decision
By Tegrat on 5/11/2009 12:11:42 PM , Rating: 5
One of the most common things in our universe.... Hydrogen.
Byproduct of it's combustion.... Water.

Cutting spending on one of the best alternatives we have...

By Whedonic on 5/11/2009 4:14:48 PM , Rating: 3
Most common: yes.
Easy to work with: No.

As the article says, building the infrastructure to support hydrogen as a fuel would be hugely expensive. Keep in mind that hydrogen is only an energy storage medium, as energy must be expended to produce it. Since there are other such storage media available and being researched, like more advanced batteries and next gen biofuels, it really does make sense to focus on those rather than a finicky technology that would require completely retooling the country's fuel distribution and storage facilities.

By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 12:21:14 PM , Rating: 4
Starting to regret your decision?

RE: Very dissappointed in this decision
By GreenEnvt on 5/11/2009 12:23:05 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen several articles on turning grass clipings into ethanol, but I don't remember seeing one about grass clipings to Hydrogen.

It's possible though, there have been articles about turning starchy foods like potatoes into Hydrogen. Grass would probably have a much lower yield though.

I like the idea of Hydrogen, but it does have severe issues right now.

I'd prefer to see vehicles go all electric, and then spend the money developing hydrogen and/or fuel cells at the powerplant or in your house level.

RE: Very dissappointed in this decision
By Griffinhart on 5/11/2009 12:46:11 PM , Rating: 3
It doesn't have any more issues than any other alternative engergy plan.

The biggest problem is with distribution.

One of the things about Hydrogen production is that you can get it several ways. Some are old, tried and true, others are cutting edge and in development.

Short term, we can get hydrogen from fossile fuels like coal and natural gas.

Medium term, we can use new nuclear plants to generate hydrogen with the added benefits of when not producing hydrogen they can produce electricity.

Long Term there are promising advances in using Algea create hydrogen.

To dismiss all of this is extremely short sited by this administration.

RE: Very dissappointed in this decision
By gstrickler on 5/11/2009 5:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't have any more issues than any other alternative engergy plan
Yes, it does. Storage, distribution/infrastructure, cost of production, and transportability are all serious issues that have no likely solutions at this time. Yes, there have been some recent results that suggest they could in 10-20 years have a viable solution to the storage and/or transportability issues, but there is still a low likelihood of those actually making it to a commercially viable product.

If the storage/transportability issues can be solved, you can assume that sufficient investment will solve the distribution/infrastructure issues, so those are secondary.

There is the fact that currently it takes at least as much energy to produce hydrogen at we can extract from it as a chemical fuel (as opposed to using it for nuclear fusion).

But the biggest is that the fuel tanks to carry it are so much heavier than the hydrogen that you expend a significant percentage of the energy produced by the hydrogen just to move the fuel tanks. Hydrogen does not look promising as a portable fuel source.

The bottom line is that hydrogen is unlikely to be a viable alternative vehicle fuel until we have working portable cold-fusion reactors (which looks like it'll happen Tuesday after never). Still, while hydrogen is and unlikely alternative fuel, it's not completely out of the question, so we should continue some level of funding for research, but it should be pretty limited.

BTW, I'm referring to hydrogen gas used for fuel cells or combustion above. Hydrogen ions are a key part of most batteries, so hydrogen is potentially viable as part of a storage battery, but that's not what people mean when referring to hydrogen fuel or a "hydrogen economy".

By jmurbank on 5/12/2009 10:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
People like you do not know that hydrogen is safer than gasoline and diesel engines. Why is hydrogen safer? Hydrogen is an inert gas which means it takes some energy to make it reactive. Even if hydrogen gets to a point to become reactive, it mostly a source in a fire triangle. The fuel is oxygen. Since hydrogen is lighter than gasoline and diesel, the fire is put out fast. Chances of getting a fire at a hydrogen fueling station is very, very low compared to diesel and gasoline. Even if there is a fire problem at hydrogen fueling stations, it will not be any more than your arm hairs getting fried compared to getting your skin completely burnt at a gas or diesel station. How I know this is from a lab in chemistry. My chemistry teacher ignite a 2 liter bottle that has some hydrogen in it. Some bottles went in the air and others did not. At one time, the steam burnt some hairs off my teacher's hand. Then my teacher went back to business with out having to use the first aid or going to the ER.

The total cost of biodiesel versus hydrogen by making, delivering, and using them is that biodiesel costs more than hydrogen. Biodiesel is already making a big dent in our food sources. It is making food more expensive by having corn, wheat, and sugar cane be re-routed to this refinery. Sure you think biodiesel is cheap, but the cost of farming and what farming does to the environment is more than thinking it is cheap. Hydrogen is cheaper. It can be deliver in trucks or by pipe, Transporting by truck and pipe is not the only way, but water could be transported and then hydrogen can be split from water on-demand at the facility. Using electrolysis or using an aluminum-germanium alloy pellets could be used for the on-demand setup. Yes, this can provide all the demand that we want.

Biodiesel has the same toxins that a gasoline or diesel engine has at their exhaust. Hydrogen has a lot fewer toxins that is released at its exhaust.

We do not need fusion reactors to make energy or any special ways to transport it. There is already on-demand methods that can be used for hydrogen. Companies have already thought additional safety features to assure people that hydrogen is safe, but they did not have to and it is not really needed.

I know that fuel cells are not efficient because heat penalizes their performance. NASA uses fuel cells in the space shuttle and space station because there is no moving parts and they have the ability to cool off the fuel cells with out using a lot of energy. Sure fuel cells are great for space industry, but for here on land it is not. For land based vehicles, hydrogen based combustible engines are better because they are easy to maintain and do not have to replace them every few years.

RE: Very dissappointed in this decision
By joex444 on 5/11/2009 3:41:06 PM , Rating: 3
I have a lot of confidence in Dr. Chu. Recall he is a Nobel Prize winner. He's done some impressive stuff and I think he understands full well the energy situation and how to best get results.

Here's the deal with hydrogen -- its a storage of energy. You apply a voltage to water and you split it into H2 and O2 (by the rxn 2H2O -> H2 + 2O2). You then "siphon" off the hydrogen, store it and when you recombine it with O2 you get water as the exhaust but more importantly you harness that energy back. Even under ideal conditions, a fuel cell will produce around 1.5V. This means we need cars that use many individual cells; not a big deal.

But it's self defeating. If you're going to power an electric car from hydrogen, why not power it from electricity? That 1.5V output represents less energy than you put in to make the water split into hydrogen + oxygen to start with. You're going to lose no matter what you do, so it makes sense to choose something that requires less hoops to go through to simply power a car. That's what electric cars do.

Sure, you need batteries. But the major grid for electrical power is well established. Converting all your gas stations to hydrogen would be a nightmare infrastructurally.

The best alternative *right now* that we have is the diesel hybrid engine. Diesel is an interesting fuel because it is so ubiquitous, yet many people associate it with big plumes of black smoke and sulfur. We have low-sulfur diesel that reduces these problems. And while burning 1 gallon of diesel releases more hydrocarbons than burning 1 gallon of gas, that diesel will produce more than enough power to compensate. In essence, diesel produces less pollution per mile because its energy efficiency is higher. This may be due to how diesel engines can produce such high torques at low RPM (which creates low HP cars, but with plenty of torque). Also, diesel engines require less maintenance and last longer. All wins in my book. Reduces pollution, reduces oil consumption and requires little modification to infrastructure PLUS its a readily available technology. Compare that to hydrogen which presents a logistical nightmare and requires the use of electrical power.

If we do end up with an electric car based solution, at some point, we will need to wake up and realize that nuclear power is the only true solution. This coal stuff has to go, its pretty ridiculous.

By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 4:43:08 PM , Rating: 4
And if we use algae produced diesel, every bit of that "dangerous" chemical CO2, outputted was drawn in when the fuel was being created.

RE: Very dissappointed in this decision
By MarcLeFou on 5/11/2009 6:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
I would think hydrogen could be a great alternative to gas and coal power plants if algae based production or the like can be attained on a massive scale.

It would also solve the issue of a consummer distribution network and the fact that we'd all be driving with compressed mini-bombs underneath our cars given the storage requirements for hydrogen.

Until fusion power plants become technically worthwhile, I could see a good mix of hydrogen, hudroelectric, wind and solar power giving the bulk of the energy to most countries.

By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 7:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
A traditional power plant operating off hydrogen to produce heat to turn a turbine would require vast amounts of hydrogen and make it not worth it. It's energy density is incredibly low.

Fusion is the only place where using hydrogen makes sense.

By lco45 on 5/18/2009 1:40:02 AM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen is not a power source, any more than a battery is a power source.

You need electricity to generate hydrogen or charge a battery.
There's no hydrogen just lying about to be mined or drilled, like coal or oil.

Batteries are better than hydrogen because it's easier to transport electricity (power lines) than transport hydrogen (???).


By acejj26 on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: wow
By Spivonious on 5/11/2009 10:38:18 AM , Rating: 2
If only he'd do this with every other market the federal government interfering in we'd be much better off.

RE: wow
By Gul Westfale on 5/11/2009 10:38:38 AM , Rating: 1
but in the long run hydrogen seems to make more sense than hybrids and their toxic batteries.

RE: wow
By chmilz on 5/11/2009 10:42:47 AM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen may be non-toxic, but who said the cells wouldn't be? I'm sure the devices themselves would have some amount of toxic components. It wouldn't just be a jug of hydrogen in the trunk of the car.

Electric batteries can be recycled anyway, so that's mostly a moot point as well.

RE: wow
By Tsuwamono on 5/11/2009 11:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
thats why they are doing hydrogen internal combustion engines... BMW for example has a working vehicle that does 200mph or something like that.

RE: wow
By meatless on 5/11/2009 10:36:50 AM , Rating: 1
A DT regressive agreeing with Obama? wow indeed.

On a less trollish note, a lot of his cuts have a lot more to do with practicality than are reported by the cable news networks. Think what you will of his social programs, but many of the cuts -- especially the defense ones -- make a lot of sense.

RE: wow
By Master Kenobi on 5/11/2009 11:11:47 AM , Rating: 4
I disagree with the defense cuts, and quite frankly think he needs to cut the idiotic social programs, but that's just par for the course with democrats. It's the same cat and mouse game we play everytime the GOP/Dem's switch places.

RE: wow
By ap90033 on 5/11/2009 1:22:34 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of people want you and I dead. Simple as that...

What other cuts made sense? Please explain. I prefer to hear the facts and see actual proof not talking points for the democratic party. :)

RE: wow
By Xavier434 on 5/11/2009 3:55:57 PM , Rating: 4
No, it's not that simple. You need to evaluate line by line how effective and necessary each individual method of defense actually is. Some are very necessary and others are so far fetched and chalked with speculation that they are just not worth the price tag of tax dollars and privacy.

That's one of the biggest problems with many line items within the DHS. Some of them are based almost solely on speculative threats and all they report on is speculative results. We don't actually know if they are doing anything at all. I am not saying all of that stuff is useless and should be cut, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

You are asking for facts. I don't blame you. I am too. I want facts about how effective some of this specific defense spending actually is.

By chmilz on 5/11/2009 10:39:15 AM , Rating: 3
It's here now, we're rapidly improving storage systems, and we're finding more efficient ways to produce it. Hydrogen was a pipe-dream from the beginning, as are most other alternative fuels.

RE: Electric
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 11:02:44 AM , Rating: 2
Rapidly improving? Please tell me of a rapid improvement that has actually made it to market lately. Sure there is plenty of research going on, but none of it is ready for the market and commercially viable.

RE: Electric
By chmilz on 5/11/2009 11:12:51 AM , Rating: 2
Considering 10 years ago the world was still relying on Ni-Cad rechargeables, one-use alkalines, or lead-acid to power anything electric, and now we're using high capacity lithium batteries without fade or ghosting, I'd say that's rapid compared to hydrogen, which shows no sign of even leaving the concept stage in that time frame.

RE: Electric
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 12:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what lithium ion batteries you're buying for your laptop that show little fading.

And 10 years is hardly rapid.

Hydrogen has the ability to be used with existing engines with very few modifications. They even make conversion kits for a few cars that let you have the ability to switch between hydrogen and gasoline.

Just as hydrogen has the issue of creating enough hydrogen, batteries have the issue of storage capacity and recharge time.

Neither is ready for prime time and neither will be anytime soon. At least there's plenty of things to create hydrogen from and its a pretty clean process. Battery production is anything but clean and uses extremely rare materials.

RE: Electric
By pequin06 on 5/11/09, Rating: 0
RE: Electric
By Doormat on 5/11/2009 12:39:53 PM , Rating: 2

Advanced Lithium titanate batteries.

Not to market, but close, the army is testing it out for the M119. By the end of summer, they should get the green light to be the battery for all the howitzers, and Canada is also interested in it as well.

RE: Electric
By menace on 5/11/2009 2:36:57 PM , Rating: 2
It is claimed the prototype battery has three times the power output of existing batteries and can be fully charged in six minutes. However the energy capacity is about half that of normal li-ion cells.... The batteries can operate from -50 °C to over 75 °C and will not explode or result in thermal runaway even under severe conditions because they do not contain graphite-coated-metal anode electrode material.


Given half the energy capacity, would not be optimal for EV use but given the high charge/discharge rates, improved ruggedness, and wide environmental range and safety it is pretty swell for firing howitzers.

RE: Electric
By Zoomer on 5/11/2009 7:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds perfect for the 10 ton tank. Wow, a hybrid tank! It might double or triple it's gas mileage!

RE: Electric
By Sharpie on 5/11/2009 1:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen fuel is closer than one may think. Sure all new technologies are expensive but cost comes down in time. I would guess a lot of the success of such alternative fuels are controlled by Washington lobbyists.

Trust Steven Chu / Natural Gas is Serious
By Shig on 5/11/2009 11:49:37 AM , Rating: 1
First of all, this was the Department of Energy's call, Obama just has to back it to the nation. This was also the right call, Hydrogen as a fuel isn't even close to being ready. Steven Chu is a really smart guy, trust him.

After we found a few trillion gallons of natural gas in the shale in the US (they found a huge reserve in Canada as well), we should focus on shifting cars and homes to natural gas. Then use that as a ladder to get to hydrogen / biodiesel / all electric. T Boone Pickens really does have it right.

Not only could we weign ourselves off of oil's volatile nature, but we could start selling cars based off natural gas to other countries and the US could become the next natural resource super power that exports natural gas to everyone else for gigantic profits.

RE: Trust Steven Chu / Natural Gas is Serious
By tjr508 on 5/11/2009 12:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
A) You can't export natural gas without pipelines and our neighbors have plenty of it already.

B) The only reason we are going after the shale plays and the coal-bed-methane is that our traditional sand and lime reservoirs are plumb empty. Most other countries aren't depleted enough to even begin to think about ultra-expensive shale drilling.

The positive side to all of this is that due to the US being ultra depleted, we stay well ahead of the curve on advanced oil and gas extraction technologies and sell these technologies to other nations who are just beginning to struggle with traditional methods.

By martinw on 5/11/2009 5:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
TextYou can't export natural gas without pipelines

Sure you can:

By mdogs444 on 5/11/2009 12:21:36 PM , Rating: 5
Steven Chu is a really smart guy, trust him.

The guy who said global warming will wipe out all California farms by end of century. The same guy who wants a new treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol? The same guy who believes in Global Warming and altering our energy around it?

No Thanks. Not only is he not a smart man, but I don't trust him either.

RE: Trust Steven Chu / Natural Gas is Serious
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 12:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
You're thinking of oil shale I think, not natural gas.

And the government now under Obama is trying to make it so that we can't go after those resources.

By tjr508 on 5/11/2009 12:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
He's speaking of the Woodford shale (southern Oklahoma), the Barnett shale (northern Texas), the Fayettville shale ( north-central Arkansas), and whatever they call that deep stuff in far west Texas.

Our track record on these wells is pretty good so far, but the extraction methods are terribly expensive and involve horizontal drilling, complex cementing, lots of fluids and artificial sands, extremely expensive and intensive formation fracturing, and last but not least: a little luck.

By ZachDontScare on 5/11/2009 2:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, this was the Department of Energy's call, Obama just has to back it to the nation.

It's Obama's administration - it's his responsibility.

From the tech front
By Regected on 5/11/2009 12:14:57 PM , Rating: 2
While this cut looks like political propaganda, it has a footing in the real technology. Hydrogen is a great fuel, and creating it on demand is an easily deploy able technology to get cars in the showroom within five years. There is just one problem. Where do you think industrial grade hydrogen comes from? Ever hear of hydrocarbons? Yup, that's right. The clean burning fuel of the future comes from oil. That's why the oil companies pushed hydrogen as a fuel source. The big oil companies knew what was going on and wanted to secure their place in the future market.

I know I'm going to get trolled by people saying you can get hydrogen from water. This is true, but the amount of energy put into creating the hydrogen with traditional electrolysis cells is far greater than that extracted from burning the hydrogen.

I'm not going to pretend to know where our energy will come from in the future. I don't drink the kool-aid (I voted for Ron Paul), but I thank Obama for this move. Hopefully more people will see that our problems can't be solved with one large project, but small projects that we do ourselves. Open your eyes and free your mind.

RE: From the tech front
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 12:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
So you like hydrogen as a fuel but you're glad research funding into it is being cut?

RE: From the tech front
By bldckstark on 5/11/2009 12:33:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you can get hydrogen from oil. Chrysler was using gasoline reforming fuel cells in their "future" cars for a while. The source of hydrogen that everyone wants to get their hands on is at the bottom of the ocean. Their are bacteria there that excrete solid hydrogen (due to the pressure at the depths they live). They are thousands of years of worth of hydrogen off the coast of every ocean bordered country. The US would be energy independent on hydrogen without electrical reformation of water.

The issue is that as the hydrogen is brought up to the derrick, it expands and becomes very volatile. Japan has blown up two rigs trying to "mine" this stuff. If we can figure out a way to get to it, the oil companies would still be in the money, and the economy would not have to change so much. This is why big oil was pushing hydrogen.

RE: From the tech front
By Alexstarfire on 5/11/2009 12:59:12 PM , Rating: 1
If true I don't see how it'd be that complicated to get it to the surface. I could forsee problems of getting it up quickly and in large enough quantities, but not just getting it up in general.

RE: From the tech front
By Kary on 5/11/2009 5:59:20 PM , Rating: 2
Solid hydrogen?

Are you sure you don't mean natural gas? (

I'm glad they cut spending on hydrogen for cars. Spend the money researching using batteries for cars and making efficient hydrogen "batteries" (fuel cells)... why spend the same money on the same thing twice (fuel cell cars/battery powered cars).

RE: From the tech front
By martinw on 5/11/2009 6:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
It's not solid hydrogen - given that hydrogen freezes at -260C you are unlikely to find it at the bottom of the ocean.

You are actually thinking of Methane clathrate:

and there are a whole host of problems with being able to use this as an energy source, the main one being the economic one of the cost of retrieval given the resources are very thinly distributed. It's the same issue as getting gold from the ocean - there is a lot of it there, but extracting it economically is a different matter altogether.

RE: From the tech front
By Alexstarfire on 5/12/2009 8:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
That's only at normal pressure. I can make water boil at room temperature given the right pressure.

By danrien on 5/11/2009 11:23:11 AM , Rating: 5
I always thought hydrogen energy seemed far-fetched. Now let's build some new nuclear power plants....

RE: good
By FITCamaro on 5/11/2009 12:19:25 PM , Rating: 2
Hydrogen powered cars and nuclear power plants have nothing to do with one another.

RE: good
By Alexstarfire on 5/11/2009 12:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
Nor did he imply that they were connected. Although I understood what he was saying. I guess you didn't pick up on it though. In light of hydrogen power getting cuts electric cars would indirectly get a boost. As such we'll need more power, hence needing more power plants for electricity production. And moving away from coal won't hurt either.

RE: good
By Natfly on 5/11/2009 11:28:50 AM , Rating: 4
This is great, cut research money because something isn't economically feasible yet...isn't that what research is for?

But by all means, continue to subsidize ethanol with hundreds of millions of dollars just to make it "marketable."

RE: Fantastic....
By tjr508 on 5/11/2009 1:16:16 PM , Rating: 2
Lawyers ans science don't mix.

As far as a lawyer is concerned, the correct science is whatever the uneducated masses (juries) believe. This is why they make such great politicians.

RE: Fantastic....
By 2bits on 5/12/2009 6:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
I love how everyone is ignoring the most important point.. it won't be feasible for AT LEAST 10-20 years. It's not like hydrogen is right around the corner.

Yes, ethanol is leaps and bounds better. Cellulosic ethanol is very viable in the short term. Then we turn waste into fuel, and all the "experts" here can suck it.

only production needed
By Silver2k7 on 5/11/2009 2:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
"hydrogen production, storage, and transport remain tremendous obstacles."

There is only 1 area they need to focus on, thas the production stage.. pour water into the tank, and from there the car will produce what it needs during the drive..

the other choise would be to drive around in ticking time bombs.. tanks full of hydrogen. this seems unacceptable to me, if two such cars collide *BOOM* = bad idea.

Storing water seems easy enough, same with transporting it.