EPA Gives OK To Production Of Fuel-Cell Cars To Meet Zero-Emission Mandates

[hatrack]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has cleared the way for automakers to produce hydrogen-powered fuel-cell cars to meet zero-emission vehicle requirements in California and 10 other states. In a waiver signed last week, EPA officials approved amendments adopted in 2003 by the California Air Resources Board that allow manufacturers to produce fuel cells as an alternative to battery-powered cars and light trucks previously required by the state.

EDIT

"This waiver simply reflects the prominence of fuel cells," EPA spokesman John Millett said. "Fuel cells have really taken off." (Ed. - Huh?)

EDIT

Automakers had mixed reactions. General Motors spokesman Dave Barthmuss said fuel-cell vehicles were "very viable to be a portion of any automaker's compliance strategy." "A lot of milestones are being met, and a lot of progress is really being made" in developing the vehicles, he said.

GM plans to put 100 fuel-cell vehicles on the road next year as a demonstration project, he added.

EDIT

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-epa24dec24,1,227951.story?coll=la-news-environment

Yay. We're saved.

[Ian David]

1. Ooh. A hundred cars. Yippee. GM can go fuck themselves. n/t

[silverweb]

2. Sure.

And the hydrogen for these fuel cells will be coming from... COAL.

Fuckers.

[TheMadMonk]

5. Water actually. There's naff all hydrogen in dry coal.

IIRC the reaction is C + H2O + heat → CO + H2.

Its not perfect. However it's still better than. C + O2 → CO2.

Question for Chem nuts. Is there a viable way to do these reactions?

CO + H20 → CO2
or
2CO + H20 → COOH + H2



Mate, it's pretty much a given that a doctrine of pure prohibition is a recipe for disaster. If a demand for a given product can be found or created then someone, somewhere will try to, and usually succeed at, turning a profit from that demand. If the demand is strong enough, then no matter how draconian the penalty, a market willing to pay the concomitant price will remain. In this scenario everybody but the seller (provided he shields himself with suitable cutouts) loses. The buyer, because he pays a price far beyond that he would pay in a free market and the general public, since they pay the cost (in a Red Queen's race) of enforcement directly, and increased crime indirectly.

Metaphorically, energy is the ultimate drug, each and every one of us is irredeemably addicted to it from birth, without it we die with no appeal possible. Thus any potential source of energy is going to be exploited to supply that "drug" no matter how little some of us might like the idea.

Thus, there are only two viable options. 1) Price the energy from a given source out of the market; or 2) extract the energy from a given source in the least damaging way possible, concomitant with extracting a reasonable profit at the same time.

Right now, like it or lump it, we're pretty much stuck with option 2 where it comes to fossil fuels.

[Ready4Change]

7. And the heat in the equation comes from...? (n/t)

[TheMadMonk]

9. A match. (and the coal)

IIR my Crosstime Engineer correctly the simplest way is to get a bed of coal burning, shut off the oxygen supply and run live steam over it. Catalysts would almost certainly improve the efficiency of the process enormously, but even without, the process is still quite efficient.

Much the same process was used in the wood/charcoal burning gas generators installed on cars during the rationing of WWII.

The mix of H2 & CO is called coal or water gas. It was all the rage before petroleum derived gases.

The CO was what made sticking one's head in the oven a prime choice for suicide. And the rosy pink glow it gave your skin made for a good looking corpse.

[razors edge]

3. Damn EPA has been holding them back,

I'm sure they would have come up with all of this sooner if it had not been for those pesky EPA regulators. (not sure if its sarcasm or not at this point)

[Javaman]

6. Yeah, I really hated it when the EPA told them to get rid of the EV-1...

:sarcasm:

[Strelnikov_]

4. I'd Buy That For A Dollar!

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Why is Hydrogen being hyped so much?

I agree, it's got tremendous potential. But for powering automobiles? It seems as if there are at least a dozen well-studied liquid chemicals that do the job much better, and cleaner, and with less environmental impact.

I never "got it" with respect to Hydrogen. How did it come to be The Next Really Big Thing?

--p!

[Porcupine]

10. Because it doesnt' actually work.

As long as TPTB can promote hydrogen they don't have to build any actual electric cars. The biggest problem with electric cars is that a motivated buyer can free themselves from the auto-oil merry go round once they have one.

Batteries, electic motors and controllers are all very replacable very cheaply (compared to the cost of a new vehicle). An electric car has 1/3 the parts a standard car does. That means they can be kept on the road far longer for far less. Toyota Prius owners are proving that even now.

If you add the possiblility of electric car owners buying solar panels to offset power costs the whole thing stinks of freedom. They could sell power to the utility all day and buy it back at night cheaper. That and they would have a handy buffer if the power goes out.

The whole game goes up in smoke once people can get control of even part of the system. Electric cars allow that.

[YankeyMCC]

11. Nothing like letting the free market guide things nt