Federal funding is tight right now, forcing uncomfortable choices in directing budget dollars to alternative energy projects. Some say the wisest choice is to fund technologies that are closest to market and offer short-term benefits. Others say we should focus on longer-term technologies that can offer the greatest overall gains.
Put simply, are battery electric vehicles a better investment strategy than hydrogen and fuel cell vehicles? The National Hydrogen Association (NHA) believes that both are important to reaching our nation’s goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, ending dependence on oil, and creating new jobs.
Last year, the NHA assembled a diverse group of automakers, energy companies, technology developers, and government representatives to determine which of 15 distinct fuels and alternative vehicles would have the largest environmental and energy impact over the next 100 years. The study determined that hydrogen in a fuel cell electric vehicle can cut greenhouse gas pollution to 80 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2080, achieve petroleum independence by 2060, eliminate urban air pollution a couple decades later, and save $25 trillion in oil imports between 2050 and 2100. In addition, by 2100 societal costs associated with pollution, such as health care and property damage, would be reduced by more than $600 billion.
The hydrogen industry views electric drive technologies – batteries and fuel cells – as complementary. Hydrogen can enable long-range, lighter-weight large vehicles and fast fueling. Batteries are good for shorter-range urban vehicles and to capture and store energy from braking, making any vehicle more efficient. Auto manufacturers can use both technologies to create a wider variety of vehicles and can reduce greenhouse gases more than by using batteries alone – and they’re already being used together in most hydrogen vehicles.
Fuel cells and batteries are not competing with each other. Both are competing with liquid fuels. Gasoline is a tough competitor and will dominate for decades. But it’s essential to start building the infrastructure now if we are to reach our country’s goals. Until enough fuel cell vehicles are on the road so that station owners can sell enough hydrogen to be self-supporting, government needs to invest in stations.
This year, the federal government provided more than $1 billion in funding for batteries and vehicle charging, yet proposed to reduce the budget for hydrogen vehicles to almost zero. Congress restored much of the hydrogen budget, but it’s still less than one-fifth of the money going to batteries and there is not enough funding for vehicles and stations. The outlook for 2011 so far looks similar unless Congress acts strongly.
In just the last few months, many automakers have announced that they will commercialize fuel cell vehicles in 2015 in the regions that have hydrogen stations. Germany, Korea, Japan and California have plans and initial government investment for building the early network of hydrogen stations that will allow thousands of people to conveniently fuel their vehicles. Where there are stations, there are jobs. The California Fuel Cell Partnership’s action plan calls for 40 new hydrogen stations to fuel thousands of fuel cell passenger vehicles and up to 60 buses and will create about 2,200 jobs. The plan costs a total of $180 million from government and industry. The National Research Council estimates building a nationwide hydrogen infrastructure over 15 years will cost about the same as three gallons of gas a year for every American.
Electric drive is crucial to moving the American transportation system forward. Batteries and fuel cells are both developing technologies and, one day, one may dominate the market. In these early years, it’s crucial that government create a level playing field that allows industry to bring the products to market and for consumers to have choices.
Source:-
http://www.greencar.com/articles/hydrogen-fuel-cells-battery-electric-both-important-future.php
No comments:
Post a Comment