REPP logo banner adsolstice ad
site map
Google Search REPP WWW register comment
home
repp
energy and environment
discussion groups
calendar
gem
about us
employment
 
REPP-CREST
1612 K Street, NW
Suite 202
Washington, DC 20006
contact us
discussion groups
efficiencyefficiency hydrogenhydrogen solarsolar windwind geothermalgeothermal bioenergybioenergy hydrohydro policypolicy
Greenbuilding Archive for January 2002
564 messages, last added Tue Nov 26 17:26:27 2002

[Date Index][Thread Index]

[GBlist] Re:[GBlist] hydrogen/energy policy-Off Topic



I like the idea of moving to a hydrogen fuel based economy, and yeah, I'm better off than some schlub back in the middle ages and all, and having spent time in urban Northeast cities and more recently rural Mexico, I know I take (and enjoy) a relatively large slice of the pie... 
 
But the administration's energy policies for the period of time between now and when a hydrogen fuel economy is in place, say the next 20 years, are not the kind of political leadership I want. In the current administration, a small group of business leaders exert enormous clout over Bush and his team in getting the rules changed to their benefit.  Here's a NYTimes editorial that shows the results of that fact:
 
Steve 
 
 
Coming from an administration fixated on producing more of the same old fossil fuels, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham's promise on Wednesday of a major government investment in fuel-cell cars powered by pollution-free hydrogen seemed almost revolutionary. Yet environmentalists who have parsed the announcement are not turning cartwheels. And for good reason. Despite hydrogen's immense promise, the administration's plan is in fact a setback for greater near-term fuel efficiency, for reducing our reliance on Middle Eastern oil and for slowing global warming...
 
...Yet there is no infrastructure in place for delivering hydrogen to cars, and a commercially viable vehicle with an on-board system for converting natural gas into hydrogen is, by many estimates, decades away.
 
Meanwhile, the administration is getting rid of the only program that seemed to be making any headway — a joint industry-government undertaking begun by Vice President Al Gore called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles...the investment so far — $1.5 billion from Washington, at least that much from Detroit — has not only created useful technologies, but also contributed crucially to the development of a viable hybrid gas-and-battery-powered car capable of well over 40 miles per gallon. Detroit plans to bring hybrid models to market in the next two years; the Japanese are already there.
 
Any federal pressure on Detroit to proceed with this program and develop high-mileage family sedans in the near term appears now to have vanished. Yet the next 10 to 20 years are vitally important to anyone who cares about urban smog, about acid rain (vehicles contribute to that, too) and about global warming. Americans will buy 150 million vehicles during the next decade, and Mr. Abraham's program won't do a thing to reduce the amount of oil they will consume. Nor will it do anything to reduce America's near-term dependence on foreign oil, which was supposed to be one of the main objectives of the Bush energy program.
 
...Mr. Abraham calls his new vehicle the Freedom Car, presumably because it will free us from fossil fuels and the countries that produce them. We hope he is right. In the meantime, though, the only people set free are the manufacturers, now relieved of the obligation (absent strong new fuel economy standards) to produce serious breakthroughs in the next few years.