# GW Bush's latest scam - polluting hydrogen cars? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 13, 2003, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996 "2003-05-13T17:32:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/21 "2003-05-13T20:46:24Z")
Well, let’s see: 1. The idea of hydrogen-powered cars isn’t something that had received a wide public discussion before the State of the Union address this year. I’m sure it had gotten some play in _Scientific American_ and _Discover_, but not everyone reads those mags. 2. So where did we who weren’t conversant with the issue _think_ the hydrogen was going to come from? Why should we have previously thought about it _at all??_ Anyway, here’s what [Bush told us](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html): > [@](#): > > In this century, the greatest environmental progress will come about not through endless lawsuits or command-and-control regulations, but through technology and innovation. Tonight I’m proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. (Applause.) > > A single chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy, which can be used to power a car – producing only water, not exhaust fumes. 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. (Applause.) > > Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy. (Applause.) Given that “foreign sources of energy” means “oil”, how _could_ we have ever assumed that Bush was saying hydrogen was available independently from petroleum? Excuse me for taking the President at his frickin’ word. I agree that by now, I should know better. But that was then, when I still thought he told the truth somewhat more often than not. [hijack] BTW, do you like the [White House’s headline on Bush’s State of the Union address](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html)? “Iraq: Denial and Deception”. Yep, that about sums it up. Shoot, they’re even _proud_ of it. [/hijack] ---
**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/22 "2003-05-13T21:02:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > There are two key benefits to fuel cell technology. The first is that a fuel cell is highly efficient. Ballard Power Fuel cells now run with about 80% efficiency, and they expect to get into the low 90s within the next couple of years. Internal combustion maxes out at about 30% efficiency. This means that a fuel cell powered car would get about three times the mileage of an equivalent gas powered vehicle. Well…little bit of an overstatement. Check out the graph in [this quick overview](http://transtech.anl.gov/v2n2/well-to-wheel.html) of Argonne’s well-to-wheel efficiency study. Because some energy is lost when reformulating natural gas (or whatever) into hydrogen, the overall well-to-wheel efficiency of an H2 vehicle is in the range of 26%-30% (BIG caveat: “The fuel cell model results are based on achieving all FreedomCAR goals”, so this isn’t _today’s_ numbers). Of course, that compares pretty well with a gasoline internal combustion vehicle (~11% WTW efficiency, so your 3:1 mileage statement isn’t far off at all). However, hybrid vehicles (“based on _today’s_ technology”) rank around 26%; pretty competitive with fuel cells. Now, personally, I’m all in favor of fuel cell research. What concerns me is that FreedomCar (the President’s fuel cell program) is big on long-term goals and small on short-term goals. And I’m cynical enough to wonder if those long-term goals will shrink and rertreat as we approach them. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/23 "2003-05-13T21:05:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\*Anyway, here’s what [Bush told us](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html): Given that “foreign sources of energy” means “oil”, how _could_ we have ever assumed that Bush was saying hydrogen was available independently from petroleum? \*\* The power to separate hydrogen would mostly come from coal, which \*is \*available domestically, as well as other sources of energy - nuclear, water-power, wind, solar, etc. Chances are oil wouldn’t be used for this purpose, because oil is particularly convenient as a portable energy source. Since hydrogen would be separated at a large plant, that sort of convenience wouldn’t be necessary. Oil would be reserved for other purposes. ---
**Author:** ![j.c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/73ab20/32.png) [@j.c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j.c)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/24 "2003-05-13T21:09:58Z")
RTFirefly - In polite society it’s not considered kosher to adopt a pose of moral outrage unless you have taken the time to familiarize yourself with the issue. You ask: > [@](#): > > So where did we who weren’t conversant with the issue think the hydrogen was going to come from? Why should we have previously thought about it at all?? When you demonstrate and admit that you are not conversant with the issue, then one has to wonder why you have such strong opinions about energy sources. This is why so many have made magic fairy jokes in this thread - your uniformed opinion carries no more weight than that of someone who did believe in a magic fairy. You quote the pres: > [@](#): > > “…make our… country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy” “Make our country much less dependent” is not the same as “end our dependency.” In fact, an imprecise phrase like “much less” should be your clue as a reader that someone is trying to sell you something. When someone is use vague phrases like “maximize” or “greater relief” it’s your job as an intelligent person to either ignore them or dig around for the facts and try to found out how those facts fit into the big picture. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/25 "2003-05-13T21:25:25Z")
Hijack for some questions: Is water vapor a greenhouse gas? What will be the cumulative effect if all US cars were spouting water vapor? I know it sounds good, but are there any unintended consequences we need to consider? Just some honest questions I have about this panacea. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/26 "2003-05-13T21:29:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by KeithT \* > [B **Scylla** , can you back up your effficiency numbers for the Ballard cells? The best overall efficiencies I’ve seen for most PEM fuel cells are around 50%. > > \*\* [Can do.](http://www.ballard.com/tD.asp?pgid=34&dbid=0) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/27 "2003-05-13T21:38:42Z")
RTF: What the President said, and what you quoted is 100% accurate. The cars are essentially pollution free. They are highly efficient. The energy that is used to get the hydrogen can be clean or not so clean. The President was talking removing the pollution of vehicles, and increasing efficiency dramatically, and taking an initiative in a breakthrough transition that can better our lives, and our environment. He spoke the truth. Is it possible that you’re view of this is slightly tinted by your shrub glasses? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/28 "2003-05-13T21:44:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by j.c. \* > RTFirefly - In polite society it’s not considered kosher to adopt a pose of moral outrage unless you have taken the time to familiarize yourself with the issue. Does this mean I’m not a member of polite society? Imagine my disappointment. 😃 > [@](#): > > When you demonstrate and admit that you are not conversant with the issue, then one has to wonder why you have such strong opinions about energy sources. This is why so many have made magic fairy jokes in this thread - your uniformed opinion carries no more weight than that of someone who did believe in a magic fairy. Boy howdy, did you miss _my_ point. Which was that, regardless of what you energy geeks think the rest of us _should have already known_ about this, most Americans surely didn’t. What they had to go on was what the President told them. If one can assume the typical American listening to the SOTU address has an advanced background in energy issues, then you could make a case that that background was the deep context for Bush’s remarks, so he wasn’t _really_ lying. But that assumption can’t be made. The OP asked if Bush was lying. He was. Again. I’m pissed about it. Again. So what else is new? > [@](#): > > “Make our country much less dependent” is not the same as “end our dependency.” In fact, an imprecise phrase like “much less” should be your clue as a reader that someone is trying to sell you something. When someone is use vague phrases like “maximize” or “greater relief” it’s your job as an intelligent person to either ignore them or dig around for the facts and try to found out how those facts fit into the big picture. Like I said, next time I’ll just assume from the outset that he’s lying, once I see his lips moving. It’ll save a lot of trouble. **december** - if you assume coal-fired plants to crack the hydrogen, then one has to crank in the fact that they’re dirtier than petroleum or natural gas power plants. And then the question is, have we gotten any cleaner? Bush of course claimed we’d get cleanliness _and_ decreased dependence on foreign oil. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/29 "2003-05-13T21:53:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > **december** - if you assume coal-fired plants to crack the hydrogen, then one has to crank in the fact that they’re dirtier than petroleum or natural gas power plants. And then the question is, have we gotten any cleaner? Yes indeed, for two reasons: 1. The plants where the hydrogen is produced can have the utmost in environmental controls. Size and weight of anti-pollution devices are no object. Tall chimneys, massive scrubbers, etc. are all feasible. OTOH passenger cars are limited to the use of relatively small, lightweight anti-pollution devices. 2. The hydrogen plants would be in a few, remote locations, so whatever pollution they cause wouldn’t be all around us, the way auto pollution is. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/30 "2003-05-13T21:59:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by spoke- \* > \*\*Hijack for some questions: > > Is water vapor a greenhouse gas? > > What will be the cumulative effect if all US cars were spouting water vapor? I know it sounds good, but are there any unintended consequences we need to consider? > > Just some honest questions I have about this panacea. \*\* Yes it is, and one of the largest- if not THE largest. However, it does not work (as a greenhouse gas) as well as CO2. There is another gas (methane? 😕 ) which is even worse for “global warming” than CO2, however. Thus, it woudl seem that overall, the greenhouse gases would go down if we used H2 cell cars, where we got the H2 from coal. Note that also, someday, we could generate the power to break out the H2 from “pollution free” sources. However, this brings up that all important term “TAANSTAAFL”. Electric cars also have to get their electricity from somewhere. Fuel cells have to get their H2 from somewhere. But even wind, hydro & solar are not 100% “safe” for the environment. Wind turbines tend to chop up birds- especillay raptors (eagles). They also could have a long term effect on the climate by diverting regional wind patterns. So far, they haven’t studied this much yet. Hydro needs dams, and when you dam a river, the Sierra club (and others) howl. Even though it is right now the energy source that is best at combining environment safety with efficiency, the Sierra club keeps working toward tearing dams down. Then, one page over, they complain about global warming.:rolleyes: Solar effects the Earth’s albedo, and also requires large surface are. Right now, we use so litle of it that any effect on the albedo is insignificant, but it could have disasterous effects with massive use. Or not- we really don’t know. Likely, it will change the local climate. So- some things are better for the environment than others, but nothing is 100% “good”.:dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/31 "2003-05-13T22:00:19Z")
RTF: Hydrogen power **will** make us Independant of foreign energy source (assuming, you know, that it works and all.) The President was not lying. Us energy geeks understand that you have to walk before you run, and it will be a transitionary thing. Our hydrogen will come fromt he densest and most exploitable source. That will be natural of which the US has the largest supply in the world IIRC. We can also get it from oil, coal, nuclear, solar, and tidal power pulling it from water, etc. Since we are looking at three times the efficiency we are looking at only 1/3 the fuel needed. Then too, there are a few other reasons for the transitionary nature of this endeavor. Hydrogen is dangerous crap. Essentially a hydrogen powered with it’s huge tank of compressed hydrogen would be like driving around in your own private Hindenburgh. You see the problem? There are a couple of ideas on how to solve this. The first is a metal hydride storage system which basically stores the hydrogen in huge quantities in inert, unpressurized and easily retrievable form. This may or may not work. The second is not having a tank of hydrogen at all. What you do is you have a tank of gasoline or some other hydrocarbon. Then what you do is reform it onboard as you need hydrogen. No dangerous storage, plus you can fill up at any existing gas station! Hopefully you see the advantage. If it ended just there, it would be a huge advance in efficiency and pollution control. It doesn’t. Obviously, since hydrogen is available in a variety of ways from a variety of sources the dependance on fossil fuels is not built into the technology. However, when creating this technology, the transition becomes smoother and more effective if existing infrastructure can be implemented. So, there is nothing wrong with using fossil fuels for fuel cells. In fact, it is a positive, a bonus as it helps make the transition feasible and compatible with current infrastructure. The efficiency of the setup, and the flexible hydrogen sources do help make us independant from foreign energy sources. We have to walk before we run though. I know you’d like to see us go from the Wright Brothers straight to a 747, but there’s a lot of ground to be covered in the middle. Hopefully you understand now. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/32 "2003-05-13T22:57:54Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by KeithT \* Listen to **december** for once… he knows what he’s talking about. :)[/.quote] Okay, but it’s such an _unnatural_ occurrence, y’know? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/33 "2003-05-13T23:05:56Z")
From the point of view of several of my environmentalist friends, the objective they want to realize is the transformation of the transportation industry into a point source pollution industry. The fuel is produced at specific places which can be targeted for emissions control. The vehicles themselves stop being a non-point source pollution hazard. That has the potential to be a very good thing. ---
**Author:** ![KeithT](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@KeithT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KeithT)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/34 "2003-05-13T23:32:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > > Hydrogen is dangerous crap. Essentially a hydrogen powered with it’s huge tank of compressed hydrogen would be like driving around in your own private Hindenburgh. You see the problem? Only if you [paint the fuel tank with rocket fuel](http://engineer.ea.ucla.edu/releases/blimp.htm): > [@](#): > > “Actually, its great buoyancy and extremely high diffusivity in air make for a very rapid dispersal before ignition can take place,” Van Vorst further noted. “Gasoline, on the other hand, with its heavier-than-air vapor, simply accumulates until a flammable mixture is formed and ignites.” In fact, he said, hydrogen is even “safer than propane, and is on a par with natural gas.” [“Fill’er Up—With Hydrogen”](http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/feb02/features/fillerup/fillerup.html), from the Feburary 2002 issue of _Mechanical Engineering_ discusses development of hydrogen containment systems. > [@](#): > > “These tests included placing the cylinder in a crash car, firing armor-piercing bullets at it, dropping the cylinder from six feet onto a concrete surface, placing it in a diesel fire, cycling it thousands of times, and subjecting the cylinder to extreme cold and to corrosive liquids encountered in automotive environments, such as battery acids, saltwater, brake oils, and methanols,” explained Neel Sirosh, a mechanical engineer and director of fuel storage systems at Quantum." Can your _gas tank_ withstand armor piercing bullets and diesel fires? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2003, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/35 "2003-05-13T23:45:51Z")
Although Dubya was referring to a specific technology (fuel cells) there are other methods of using Hydrogen. H202 can be used in today’s vehicles with modification to existing engines. This was tested back in the 70’s but was more expensive than gasoline to implement (and probably still is). It hinged financially on the ability to mass-produce photo electric cells. It was not practical in the 70’s because of this. As a hobbyist I don’t want to see gasoline go away completely but I would love a hydrogen powered vehicle for daily use. I’m not sure I fully agree that internal combustion engines are limited to 20% efficiency. I’ve scene engine claims that go way beyond that (greater than 40%) using the mechanical advantage of steam. Yes, technically it isn’t getting more energy from the fuel, but the overall efficiency is there. I’m not an engineer and none of these engines are in mass production so I can’t verify the claims. ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/49beb7/32.png) [@Dave\_D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_D)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/36 "2003-05-14T01:34:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*RTF: > > What the President said, and what you quoted is 100% accurate. The cars are essentially pollution free. They are highly efficient. > \*\* Quick question. I was under the impression that these cars use an electric motor to move and that the motors produce some amount of ozone.(Which at ground level is a pollutant) Is it they don’t produce as much ozone as I think they do or something like that? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/37 "2003-05-14T02:03:24Z")
No. I guess those motors would produce ozone. I also suppose the plastics in those cars would exude volatiles. Hopefully nobody’s going to go “But Bush promised us pollution free cars. He’s obviously lying,” because of this, but I wouldn’t bet on it. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/38 "2003-05-14T02:12:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > Hydrogen power **will** make us Independant of foreign energy source (assuming, you know, that it works and all.) > > The President was not lying. Us energy geeks understand that you have to walk before you run, and it will be a transitionary thing. > > Our hydrogen will come fromt he densest and most exploitable source. That will be natural of which the US has the largest supply in the world IIRC. We can also get it from oil, coal, nuclear, solar, and tidal power pulling it from water, etc. > > Since we are looking at three times the efficiency we are looking at only 1/3 the fuel needed. Huh. **zut** ’s numbers had hydrogen being 2.5 times as efficient as conventional internal combustion engines, but about even with hybrids. Which we already have. So we’ve got a long-term, may-well-someday-work project to essentially break even, efficiency-wise. (If the word after ‘natural’ was supposed to be ‘gas’, we don’t have the world’s largest reserves by a long shot, and [demand is going up, while supplies are drying up](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39696-2003Apr25¬Found=true). Links on the natural gas reserves, courtesy of the US Geologic Survey: [North America (incl. Mexico)](http://energy.er.usgs.gov/products/papers/World_oil/gas/nam_gas_basin_table.htm) [Middle East](http://energy.er.usgs.gov/products/papers/World_oil/gas/meast_gas_basin_table.htm) [Former Soviet Union](http://energy.er.usgs.gov/products/papers/World_oil/gas/fsu_gas_basin_table.htm) And those pages have links to the other regions, but those are the main ones.) ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/49beb7/32.png) [@Dave\_D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_D)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/39 "2003-05-14T02:24:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*No. I guess those motors would produce ozone. I also suppose the plastics in those cars would exude volatiles. > > Hopefully nobody’s going to go “But Bush promised us pollution free cars. He’s obviously lying,” because of this, but I wouldn’t bet on it. \*\* Well I was just curious since I’ve heard alot of what sounded like nonsense about fuel cells. You know, it seems like the people that say “no pollution, it’ll put the oil companies out of business, etc” don’t realize it’s an energy storage solution. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996/40 "2003-05-14T02:48:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RTFirefly \* > \*\*Huh. **zut** ’s numbers had hydrogen being 2.5 times as efficient as conventional internal combustion engines, but about even with hybrids. Which we already have. So we’ve got a long-term, may-well-someday-work project to essentially break even, efficiency-wise. \*\* Not quite. My cite backs up the 80% efficiency number, which still places it about twice that of hybrids. the other thing to think about hybrids is that they are not “equivalent” to the standard car that I am comparing fuel cells too. They make a portion of their gains through gearing, regenerative braking, low wind coefficients, and significantly less power. Apply these to fuel cell powered vehicles and you get more gains as well. “Equivalent” is something like the Jeep Commander, which is a big ute, with lots of power and a big profile compared against a standard jeep. In making Fuel cell powered vehicles they’re trying to strive for an equivalent power rating. Additionally at this point it is easier to envision a large pickup, suv, or bus powered by a fuel cell as it currently takes a lot of weight and volume to have a cell/motor/fuel setup that can power a vehicle because the technology is not mature. Once you have that minimum, power can be added in relation to mass and volume on a favorable basis. To give you an idea, ten years ago, a fuel cell vehicle consisted of a minivan filled with the apparatus, that could carry one passenger and no cargo. Today it basically takes up the trunk and the engine compartment of a compact car. They are making pretty good gains in reducing the size and mass necessary, but for now it’s still only really efficient for large vehicles. Right now Ballard has several buses running on the technology with good to excellent efficiency. The gains are potentially much better than hybrids and a combination technology (i.e a superefficiently designed, underpowered, regenerative, low coefficient fuel cell vehicle would be better still.) It’s hard to gauge potential and fuel cell technology has been around for 100 years as a promising but unfulfilled potential due to technical problems. Ballard for example is extremely confident that they can beat the Volume/mass to power ratio of even high performance fuel hungry engines in a matter of years while still demonstrating great gains in efficiency. The big three are all beleivers and backers. It’s tough to measure the potential, but the recent gains and promise of the technology looks promising. > [@](#): > > (If the word after ‘natural’ was supposed to be ‘gas’, we don’t have the world’s largest reserves by a long shot, and [demand is going up, while supplies are drying up](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A39696-2003Apr25¬Found=true). Ok. Apparently I did not recall correctly. Are fuel cells guarranteed to make the world better, and pollution free? Of course not. Are they a real and promising technology that may vastly improve the status quo and are worthy of funding and consideration? I think so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gw-bushs-latest-scam-polluting-hydrogen-cars/174996.md?page=3)