"H-Prize" Announced

An anonymous reader writes " The House passed legislation to encourage research into hydrogen as an alternative fuel creating the "H-Prize",allowing scientists, inventors and entrepreneurs to vie for a grand prize of $10 million, and smaller prizes. The Department of Energy would put together a private foundation to set up guidelines and requirements for the prizes. Anyone can participate, as long as the research is performed in the United States and the person, if employed by the government or a national lab, does the research on his own time. Best political Quote: "If we can reinvent the car, imagine the jobs we can create." said bill sponsor Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C."

BMW has a nice car already

[digitaldc]

BMW has been doing research [bmwworld.com] on hydrogen powersince the 1970s, and they even have a nice 7-series sedan [bmwworld.com] ready to drive.

Does BMW win anything for its ingenuity?

Where do you GET the Hydrogen?

[gevmage]

As far as I can tell so far, the Hydrogen car thing is the political equivalent of "Look, it's the GoodYear Blimp!"

Do people not realize that Hydrogen is like electricity, it's only an energy delivery mechanism? There are NO free sources of hydrogen around to tap, to the best of my knowledge. You have to generate the hydrogen somehow...from oil, coal, or some other energy source In the amount of time that this idea has been bantered about, I have come to the conclusion that no one understands this point, including the President and the Secretary of Energy.

The reason that things like solar, wind power, or geothermal and the like have ben discussed as energy SOURCES is that they are just that; ways of extracting energy from processes on the earth. Hydrogen is an energy TRANSFER MECHANISM, not a source.

Re:A good start.

[Tx]

I have to disagree about public transport. Here in the UK, we already have massive taxation on fuel. Tony Blair's government came in with grand plans to channel funds into the public transport infrastructure, and vastly increase the number of people using it. The plan was an utter failure, and was abandoned after a several years. (OK, so we're not talking *free* public transport, but affordable, and as far as free goes, I think you need to do some math on that).

Why did it fail? There are areas where public transport is convenient - intra-urban commuters primarily - but in most such cases the public transport system is already there and utilized almost as heavily as it can be. Meanwhile for everyone else - those commuting between suburbs/outlying areas and cities - in many cases there is just no way public transport can be made attractive. For example at my previous job, I had an easy 30 minute commute by car. Public transport took 90 minutes, and cost three times as much. You couldn't really improve that much, you can only have so many stations, and you can only run your busses and trains so often. Even if you made it free, the extra hour makes it unviable. Not to talk of losing the ability to stop of at a shopping center on the way home, or run errands in my lunch break.

Since the USA has more of a car culture than the UK, I'm sure there are improvements to be made, but it is fantasy to believe that public transport is the transportation panacea that some make it out to be. Public transport has it's place, but the convenience and freedom that comes with personal transportation is not something many people want to part with, and nor should they in my opinion.

Re:Where do you GET the Hydrogen?

[WatchTheTramCarPleas]

You may not be able to grow hydrogen trees, but you can grow hydrogen pond scum. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54456, 00.html [wired.com]

In honour of Ian Dury

[jaweekes]

In honour of Ian Dury.

Taken from "There Ain't Half Been Some Clever Bastards"

Einstein can't be classed as witless.
He claimed atoms were the littlest.
When you did a bit of splitting-em-ness
Frighten everybody shitless

Left hand, Right Hand

[lordsid]

I might be inclined to belive that if the government wasn't actively trying to block the research and developement of Hydrogen based cars as witnessed here [switch2hydrogen.com].

This is complete and udder fud.

Why does this stuff get modded up?

[GuloGulo2]

"In a nutshell there are two ways to get hydrogen commercially. The first is striping hydrocarbons. They're called hydrocarbons because it diverts your attention from the very obvious problem with this approach. Hydrocarbons are foriegn oil (more accurately natural gas, but it is the same problem.) Remind me again what the problem is that prompted us to look at alternative fuels."

Or, you could use the Fischer-Tropsch process to make artificial gasoline and hydrogen AT THE SAME TIME.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer-Tropsch_proce ss [wikipedia.org]

"The mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen is called synthesis gas or syngas. The resulting hydrocarbon products are refined to produce the desired synthetic fuel.

The carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide is generated by partial oxidation of coal and wood-based fuels. The utility of the process is primarily in its role in producing fluid hydrocarbons or hydrogen from a solid feedstock, such as coal or solid carbon-containing wastes of various types. Non-oxidative pyrolysis of the solid material produces syngas which can be used directly as a fuel without being taken through Fischer-Tropsch transformations. If liquid petroleum-like fuel, lubricant, or wax is required, the Fischer-Tropsch process can be applied. Finally, if hydrogen production is to be maximized, the water gas shift reaction can be performed, generating only carbon dioxide and hydrogen and leaving no hydrocarbons in the product stream. Fortunately shifts from liquid to gaseous fuels are relatively easy to make."

But we'd still have to use hydrocarbons to make it right? Yes, coal actually, which the US has a larger reserve of than any other country in the world

http://www.geohive.com/charts/charts.php?xml=en_co alres&xsl=en_res [geohive.com]

Upsides are continued petroleum production, and a consistent source of hydrogen during the transition away from fossil fuels. No dependence on foreign oil anyore either.

Downside is greatly increased CO2 production.

You haven't looked at all the alternatives.

Re:Good Idea but

[JeremyALogan]

I suggest anyone interested in what we SHOULD be doing (nuclear power and hydrogen fuel wise) look in to Pebble Bed Reactors [wikipedia.org]. Not only can they provide fault-tollerant, safe, cheap nuclear power, they can also be designed to produce hydrogen as a byproduct. Why our government isn't already dumping billions in to this is beyond me.

The Chinese are completely trouncing us on this one.