Biodiesel vs. Hydrogen

Why is it that the FY ’07 DOE budget requests $288.1 million to support the implementation of the President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and only approximately half that amount, $149.7 million, is requested for the Biomass and Biorefinery Systems Research and Development program?  It is so blatantly obvious (especially with the way it is presented here) that we should be allocating most of our renewable energy funding and attention towards biodiesel development and expansion.  I just don’t get it--the path towards a cleaner transportation energy future seems so much clearer in the realm of biodiesel, am I missing something here?

The one question that I haven't seen a satisfactory answer for is the question of cold-weather performance.  How do you keep high concentrations of biodiesel from gelling in cold weather, in other words?

Check this out boys, seems too good to be true;

http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/061106/0180676.html

not that im some sort of conspiracy lunitic but...

i think there is a good argument for the reason behind funding very far into the future technology like hydrogen over easily implementable solutions is to keep the powers that be in power. eventho some talk a good game, the longer they can talk and say they are trying to solve the problem, the longer they dont have to do and keep their cronies in power...

if the above isnt true, how else can one explain the current situation?

The next step is to ask our legislators to push for more biodiesel funding.  Not that we need new infrastructure, or even that much research, but we do need to get the subsidies AWAY from the petro fuels.  And, until our elected officials realize that this is what people truly want and need, they will continue to support big oil and the dollars that come from it...

According to "The Hype About Hydrogen" (isbn 1-55963-704-8) by Joe J Romm, the stated energy balance is wrong in the table up above.

For Steam Reformed process H2 from natural gas, it is .877 (releasing tons of CO and CO2 into the air in a two step process..

For Electrolized process from h2o (the supposed clean energy panacea), it is .25!

Hydrogen is a myth as a transportation fuel.  PEM fuel cells are 10-40 years out for transportation.  What a crock.  Just more pandering to buddies, and lying to the american public.  Problem is, the public is stupid enough to swallow it all, hook line and sinker.

-kDavid

In response to the comment posted by rbright970 about the allocation of federal monies between hydrogen & biodiesel, I offer the following ...

The federal government probably decided to allocate more funds to hydrogen research for the very reasons laid out in the above table that compares Hydrogen to BioDiesl.  BioDiesel technology is already well understood.   Therefore it doesn't need as much R&D money.    

BioDiesel does need some tax incentives, which the Republican Congress & Administration have provided in the form of a $1.00 per gallon tax credit, in order to put it on a level playing field in the industry.  But, in terms of basic research, it doesn't need the assistance as much as Hydrogen does.   Hydrogen needs a lot more research support from the federal government in order to make it a viable alternative.  Therefore, the allocation of R&D dollars is weighted more heavily towards Hydrogen over BioDiesel.  That makes perfect sense, as far as I am concerned.

It is a logical way for the US federal government to allocate research monies.  Government research support should be weighted towards those technologies that need more basic research to get them off the ground.  Since Hydrogen has enourmous potential, if the research can be worked out, it makes sense to provide more support for Hydrogen research.

A BioDiesel entrepreneur, like myself, can get business support from tax incentives and the Small Business Adminstration.    Such supports do exist, including most importantly, the $1.00 per gallon tax incentive that was passed by the Republican Congress and the Republican Administration.

I don't see any problems with how the R&D monies and other alternative energy incentives are being allocated.      You are not giving the Bush Administration a fair shake!

http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

another piece of information on how the H economy is problematic. certainly the Bush admin. had to know these #'s before their big epiphany. so either they are incompetent or are in cahoots with the status quo.

they dont need a 'fair shake', they need a throttling...

Federal research funding should be spent on areas that NEED research.   Hydrogen needs research because it is currently not a competitive technology.

BioDiesel doesn't need as much research funding, because it the technology is already well understood.

Here's an analogy that might help you to understand.  Let's say we are trying to decide on the allocation of research money between cancer and myopia.  Cancer, on the one hand, is a disease for which there is a great deal of room for improvement in the available treatments.  Myopia (near-sightedness) is a disease for which we already have several good treatment options: eyeglasses, contacts, laser surgery.

Which disease should we spend more federal research dollars on?  Myopia or cancer?  Clearly, we should spend it on cancer, because that is where it is needed most.

Same applies to Hydrogen versus BioDiesel.  Hydrogen needs the R&D dollars more than BioDiesel.  So, Hydrogen should get more research money.

It's pretty simply really.  If you cannot grasp this, then perhaps you are the incompetent one.

I don't how to make this point any clearer.  If you cannot understand it, then perhaps YOU, rather than the Bush Administration, needs to be throttled for incompetence.

Hey Jlglex, did you happen to get your head out of your ass and check out the link posted by froggy regarding the scientific facts, namely the physics, behind why hydrogen doesn't even make any sense at all to begin to consider as an future energy alternative?  

Quoting Bossel:  “About four renewable power plants have to be erected to deliver the output of one plant to stationary or mobile consumers via hydrogen and fuel cells,” he writes. “Three of these plants generate energy to cover the parasitic losses of the hydrogen economy while only one of them is producing useful energy.”

This fact, he shows, cannot be changed with improvements in technology. Rather, the one-quarter efficiency is based on necessary processes of a hydrogen economy and the properties of hydrogen itself, e.g. its low density and extremely low boiling point, which increase the energy cost of compression or liquefaction and the investment costs of storage."

Your analogy sucks.  Bossel clearly demonstrates, throught the firmly-rooted laws of physics, that a hydrogen-fueled economy shouldn't even be a so-called "disease" to even bother spending time (AND $) with "treating".  Maybe you can consult your college physics text to learn a little about exergy losses and energy carriers before you run your stupid mouth next time.

Wow, Jonny!  I see you are still swallowing the Bush propaganda hook, line and sinker.   The bottom line is that the "hydrogen economy" is a fiction that the oil companies (including the political branch of the oil companies known as "The Bush and Cheney Show") perpetrate upon us to to distract us from the real alternatives that could be developed right now, such as biodiesel and EVs.  "Just wait," the oilies say, "In 10 or 20 years, we'll all be driving in fuel cell-powered cars."  The problem is that this 10 or 20 year reference is a rolling timeframe - fuel cells have been "10 to 20 years out" since the 1970s.

C'mon, Jonny, you're driving green these days.  Let that be the catalyst that propels you away from the dark side.  Come to the light, Jonny.  Come to the light!

Sincerely,

Forbes Bagatelle-Black

West Coast Editor, EVWorld.com

Here's another paper that throws cold water on the hydrogen/fuel cell hype:

http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_FutureFuels.pdf

By the way, Mike Briggs' paper, "Widescale Biodiesel Production from Algae", is referenced in this paper (reference #69, just before the "conclusion" section).

i think a better analogy is fighting cancer vs fighting death.

sure, fighting death is a great thing...for we all know that someday we are going to die. that is the golden goose. but...alas, its not that simple.the more simple and thoughful fight is to fight cancer. and then going down that road, maybe into the future we can lessen deaths touch. but just because we slightly understand cancer doesnt mean it doesnt need research funding...its EXACTLY were we need to research funding because its a cure.

same with ur analogy of rational behind funding the H economy. its the golden goose that doesnt mean much because by the time we reach it, we have distroyed everything we know and love.

The thing is, biodiesel does need research, and a lot of it. It's all about feedstocks, and algae is, at present, not viable. Obviously, it can be, and even must be- if you want to escape gathering the sun's energy either months, millenia, or eons after the fact in one region and transporting it to another- which is why it needs research. However, there are at least a dozen startups in the US alone already receiving venture capital and other monies. Hydrogen is not exciting capitalists, because it doesn't show obvious promise.

There is a reseach direction that may or may not be for real regarding hydrogen delivery: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/09/handheld_hydrog.html. In the absense of such a system, you would be carrying one of the most deadly cargos on the roads today if you were even able to sufficiently compress enough hydrogen to go more than a hundred miles or so. By today's technology, it's no more promising than a trunk and backseat full of lead acid batteries. And, with this system, it's delivering a LOT of heat, which is what it was supposed to solve; thermal polution.

I don't see hydrogen research going anywhere without public funding, and maybe even with. The same can't be said for biodiesel; it will happen, and nothing can change that. Still, I'd like to see the govt get more involved.

BTW- there are at least three products that bring the gel point down below zero F. I'd like to see more effort at getting these generally available and the price down. Apart from Algae, that's where biodiesel R&D is needed.

-- Len