Bush gambles on fuel cells for cars Short-term pain may bring
long-term gain
"There is a continuous ploy by the car
companies to create a vehicle that's just
beyond the reach of technology," said
Frank, a researcher and proponent of
hybrid vehicles, which have both a
gasoline engine and an electric motor.
"They say, 'Just leave us alone and we'll
make great cars,' and the administration
has fallen for it."
Michael Cabanatuan, Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle
Thursday, January 10, 2002
The Bush administration's decision to
call off the quest for an 80-mile-
per-gallon car in favor of research on fuel
cell-powered vehicles will delay the
nation's freedom from foreign oil for
years, fans and critics of the move
agreed yesterday.
The fans, however, say that although it
might be 20 years before drivers zip
around in cars that drip only water from
the tail pipe, the wait will be worth it.
Critics doubt it. The administration's
strategy shift, many said yesterday, is a
shortsighted blunder that gives up on the
best thing going and will allow Detroit to
keep churning out gas guzzlers.
Even if fuel-cell technology is the future,
they say, what about the next 20 years?
"I think everyone agrees fuel cells are
the next fuel technology," said Jason
Mark, who directs the clean vehicle
program for the Union of Concerned
Scientists, an environment-oriented
advocacy group that claims 50,000
members. "But in the short term, we
need a strategy to increase fuel
economy."
Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham said
yesterday that the administration would
end a Clinton-era program to develop an
affordable high-mileage car, something
the nation has spent $1.5 billion on since
1993.
Instead, he said, the country should
invest an unknown amount in a
partnership with the auto industry to
develop vehicles powered by fuel cells,
which squeeze electricity from hydrogen
and leave only water as a byproduct. He
announced the Freedom CAR
(Cooperative Auto Research) program at a
Detroit automotive show.
Representatives of the auto industry and
companies working to develop fuel- cell
technology said the administration is
wisely choosing to invest in a technology
that could eliminate the nation's
reliance on oil instead of simply
tinkering with today's gas-powered cars
to make them run more efficiently.
"It's certainly the right thing to do to see
if and how we can use hydrogen as a
source of energy," said Philip Gott, an
automotive consultant for DRI- WEFA, an
international consulting firm. "It's the
only fuel that can be burned with zero
impact.
"But to make it competitive, and at a
reasonable cost, a lot of work has to be
done," he said. "If you focus your efforts
on intermediate technology, you're
postponing the day the ultimate solution
will come."
CALL TO KEEP BOTH
PROGRAMS
Critics, including leading environmental
groups, called for continuing the Clinton
program, for raising minimum fuel
efficiency standards for trucks, vans and
SUVs and for improving hybrid and
battery-powered vehicles.
"The better way to solve our energy
needs is to raise fuel economy standards
to 40 miles per gallon," said Alan
Madison, a Sierra Club spokesman. "If we
make cars and light trucks go farther on
a gallon of gas, we will save far more oil
than we import from the Persian Gulf or
could ever find in the Arctic (National
Wildlife Refuge). And, more importantly,
we would be saving drivers money at the
gas pump."
The Senate is expected to debate raising
fuel efficiency standards for small
trucks, vans and SUVs next month.
The Freedom CAR program will focus on
developing the technology to mass
produce affordable hydrogen-powered
fuel cell vehicles and the hydrogen
supply infrastructure to support them,
according to Energy Department officials.
Some observers of the auto industry,
including Andrew Frank, a mechanical
engineering professor at the University of
California at Davis, are skeptical that
anything will ever come of it.
"There is a continuous ploy by the car
companies to create a vehicle that's just
beyond the reach of technology," said
Frank, a researcher and proponent of
hybrid vehicles, which have both a
gasoline engine and an electric motor.
"They say, 'Just leave us alone and we'll
make great cars,' and the administration
has fallen for it."
Just as they did with the electric car,
Frank predicted, automakers eventually
will declare the hydrogen-powered
vehicle impractical.
"They'll stop it and they'll say it's because
it costs too much to produce and it isn't
competitive with the gas-powered car,"
he said. "I guarantee it."
COUNTRIES ADVANCE HYBRIDS
Frank would like U.S. automakers and
the government to put their money and
minds into hybrid vehicle technology, as
he says Japanese and European car
manufacturers are doing.
"Even if the automakers said they were
going to start building and selling
high-tech hybrids, it would be three or
four years before they would start coming
out on the market," he said. "Fuel-cell
cars are way behind that."
Mark, of the Union of Concerned
Scientists, refuses to choose sides in the
debate. Both sides, he says, are right.
His organization, like many
environmental groups, favors increasing
the federal minimum fuel efficiency
standards for trucks and sport utility
vehicles from 20 mpg to 40 mpg. The auto
industry already has the know-how to
achieve that, Mark says, with
improvements in engines, transmission
and aerodynamics.
"Government support for fuel cells
research is vital," he said. "The social
benefits of fuel cells are too great to
ignore. We would love to see this program
move forward in tandem with increased
mileage standards."
E-mail Michael Cabanatuan at
mcabanatuan@sfchronicle.com.
sfgate.com
· Email this article to a friend |
