Americans Drive Less Even With Cheap Gas

Gas prices declined in October, but Americans continued to drive less than ever — 9 billion fewer miles than last October, in fact.

The decline points to a fundamental change in driving habits that began this summer during the gas-price spike but has continued even as prices have fallen. Since November 2007, Americans have driven 100 billion fewer miles compared to the same time span the year before that, which makes this the largest continuous decline in driving ever recorded.

The data, gathered by the Federal Highway Administration, doesn't stop there. Public transportation across the country has seen record increases, including Amtrak, which this fiscal year made the most money it's ever seen in its 37 years of operation. Car accident fatalities are also down 10% so far in 2008.

On the flipside, the Federal Highway Trust Fund continues to come up chronically short on funds because it relies on the gasoline tax. Congress already had to inject $8 billion into it earlier this year to keep important projects operating.

It doesn't take a Harvard economist to figure out that the economic sinkhole we've fallen into is largely responsible for the continued driving decline. Even if rising gas prices started the trend, tightening budgets and layoffs have continued it. Looking to cut expenses, Americans are taking fewer trips and telecommuting for work more frequently.

We're Driving Less Even as Gasoline Prices Drop (USA Today)

Americans Drive Less Even With Cheap Gas

Gas prices declined in October, but Americans continued to drive less than ever — 9 billion fewer miles than last October, in fact.

The decline points to a fundamental change in driving habits that began this summer during the gas-price spike but has continued even as prices have fallen. Since November 2007, Americans have driven 100 billion fewer miles compared to the same time span the year before that, which makes this the largest continuous decline in driving ever recorded.

The data, gathered by the Federal Highway Administration, doesn't stop there. Public transportation across the country has seen record increases, including Amtrak, which this fiscal year made the most money it's ever seen in its 37 years of operation. Car accident fatalities are also down 10% so far in 2008.

On the flipside, the Federal Highway Trust Fund continues to come up chronically short on funds because it relies on the gasoline tax. Congress already had to inject $8 billion into it earlier this year to keep important projects operating.

It doesn't take a Harvard economist to figure out that the economic sinkhole we've fallen into is largely responsible for the continued driving decline. Even if rising gas prices started the trend, tightening budgets and layoffs have continued it. Looking to cut expenses, Americans are taking fewer trips and telecommuting for work more frequently.

We're Driving Less Even as Gasoline Prices Drop (USA Today)

Stupid America? Automaker blame and cheap gas

Cheap gas hurts America

GM is bleeding money in the US, yet throughout the world GM’s auto business is profitable. Why? Why is GM near bankruptcy?

Is it all bad management? Is it all the fault of the UAW? Is it all because GM killed the electric car?

I don’t think so. Certainly, GM’s management was bad in decades past and the UAW was uncompetitive. However, killing the electric car didn’t kill GM. Even if GM was making as many EVs today as Toyota does hybrid cars, GM would still be on the precipice of bankruptcy.

Complacency killed the Big 3. Complacency caused by cheap gas.

Certainly, auto companies lobbied Congress not to raise fuel economy standards, and, until recently, Congress has been more than happy to oblige. And Americans didn’t care, as fuel economy was even less important than cup holders for the majority of car buyers.

Thus, any mention of a gas tax has been instant political suicide. Yet, protecting our foreign oil resources has cost more than a gas tax ever would have. And, what do we have to show for it?

Ooops. That’s right. We have the greatest military the world loves to hate, Whooohooo! America! We’re number 1!

Killing Detroit won’t lead to any greater fuel efficiency than if Detroit is bailed out. If you want to blame someone, or something, blame cheap gas. If you can’t do that, then you can’t handle the truth.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm and is filed under Hybrids. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Stupid America? Automaker blame and cheap gas

Cheap gas hurts America

GM is bleeding money in the US, yet throughout the world GM’s auto business is profitable. Why? Why is GM near bankruptcy?

Is it all bad management? Is it all the fault of the UAW? Is it all because GM killed the electric car?

I don’t think so. Certainly, GM’s management was bad in decades past and the UAW was uncompetitive. However, killing the electric car didn’t kill GM. Even if GM was making as many EVs today as Toyota does hybrid cars, GM would still be on the precipice of bankruptcy.

Complacency killed the Big 3. Complacency caused by cheap gas.

Certainly, auto companies lobbied Congress not to raise fuel economy standards, and, until recently, Congress has been more than happy to oblige. And Americans didn’t care, as fuel economy was even less important than cup holders for the majority of car buyers.

Thus, any mention of a gas tax has been instant political suicide. Yet, protecting our foreign oil resources has cost more than a gas tax ever would have. And, what do we have to show for it?

Ooops. That’s right. We have the greatest military the world loves to hate, Whooohooo! America! We’re number 1!

Killing Detroit won’t lead to any greater fuel efficiency than if Detroit is bailed out. If you want to blame someone, or something, blame cheap gas. If you can’t do that, then you can’t handle the truth.

This entry was posted on Monday, December 8th, 2008 at 1:11 pm and is filed under Hybrids. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

Petrol drops in Sydney below $1 a litre

etrol prices across Sydney have fallen below a dollar a litre for the first time in three years.
 
Petrol prices across Sydney have fallen below a dollar a litre for the first time in three years.

The cheapest regular unleaded petrol (ULP) can be found at a BP service station at Croydon Park, in Sydney's inner west, where it is priced at 100.9 cents per litre, according to independent price tracking website motormouth.com.au.

Service stations at Fairfield, Brookvale, Beacon Hill and Frenchs Forest are selling ULP for 101.9 cents per litre.

However, ethanol-blended fuel E10 can be bought for as little as 98.7 cents per litre at the Speedway garage in Fairfield, and for 98.9 cents per litre elsewhere in Fairfield, Beacon Hill, Frenchs Forest and Forestville.

Diesel fuel remains about 30 cents per litre more expensive than ULP.

Wednesday's genuine drop in prices follows a stunt last month when a dozen independent petrol stations slashed 40 cents off their usual fuel price, selling it for 94.9 cents a litre in protest at what they said were anti-competitive practices by the oil giants.

Petrol drops in Sydney below $1 a litre

etrol prices across Sydney have fallen below a dollar a litre for the first time in three years.
 
Petrol prices across Sydney have fallen below a dollar a litre for the first time in three years.

The cheapest regular unleaded petrol (ULP) can be found at a BP service station at Croydon Park, in Sydney's inner west, where it is priced at 100.9 cents per litre, according to independent price tracking website motormouth.com.au.

Service stations at Fairfield, Brookvale, Beacon Hill and Frenchs Forest are selling ULP for 101.9 cents per litre.

However, ethanol-blended fuel E10 can be bought for as little as 98.7 cents per litre at the Speedway garage in Fairfield, and for 98.9 cents per litre elsewhere in Fairfield, Beacon Hill, Frenchs Forest and Forestville.

Diesel fuel remains about 30 cents per litre more expensive than ULP.

Wednesday's genuine drop in prices follows a stunt last month when a dozen independent petrol stations slashed 40 cents off their usual fuel price, selling it for 94.9 cents a litre in protest at what they said were anti-competitive practices by the oil giants.

What Will the Price of Gas be in One Month?

With the United States' Presidential election now over, it will be interesting to see how our economic situation changes over the next few months.

We've currently been on a trend of gas getting markedly cheaper (anything seems more reasonable than $4.00 per gallon) and our nationwide average is now sitting around the $2.25/gallon mark, with diesel fuel commanding roughly $0.80/gallon more. American consumers are hoping that fuel prices continue to drop, but the approaching holiday season may cause a slight upward climb.

What predictions do you make for the future of gas prices? Leave a comment with your best guess for what our country's average fuel price will look like one month from now.

What Will the Price of Gas be in One Month?

With the United States' Presidential election now over, it will be interesting to see how our economic situation changes over the next few months.

We've currently been on a trend of gas getting markedly cheaper (anything seems more reasonable than $4.00 per gallon) and our nationwide average is now sitting around the $2.25/gallon mark, with diesel fuel commanding roughly $0.80/gallon more. American consumers are hoping that fuel prices continue to drop, but the approaching holiday season may cause a slight upward climb.

What predictions do you make for the future of gas prices? Leave a comment with your best guess for what our country's average fuel price will look like one month from now.

Will Dropping Gas Prices Bring Back the SUV Craze?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: the SUV craze of the late 90's and early 21st century came into play from the perspective that they were safer and more practical. Even though they presented other challenges that made them more likely to get into an accident, they are considered "more metal" to have around you and are therefore seen as safer by many drivers.

The convenience factor is obvious. Families are able to fit more easily in them. Transporting 5 or more people is much more comfortable than in a car, truck, and sometimes even a minivan.

All of that makes it sound like the dropping gas prices will rejuvinate the failing market. There are two factors that will prevent it from happening.

1. Those who traded in their SUVs for fuel-efficient vehicles can't trust the drop in gas prices. They are low now, but how long will it last?
2. Manufacturers learned their lesson and have cut production across the board of these vehicles. Lower production means higher demand, which means higher prices, which means more people will lean towards more affordable vehicles, especially with the state of the economy.

Those who have kept their SUVs will continue to keep their SUVs.

Gas prices may have been the catalyst that started the reduction of SUVs on the road, but lowering prices will not change it back. With the environment becoming more of a mainstream issue that touches us all, people started feeling good about their decisions. Even if it was the prices of gas that pulled them our of their SUVs, they still felt like they were making the right decision for the environment as well.

Regardless of what gets people thinking about the environment, it's always difficult to stop thinking about it. Once it's embedded in a person's thoughts, their actions and decisions are normally effected forever.

Will Dropping Gas Prices Bring Back the SUV Craze?

Short answer: no.

Long answer: the SUV craze of the late 90's and early 21st century came into play from the perspective that they were safer and more practical. Even though they presented other challenges that made them more likely to get into an accident, they are considered "more metal" to have around you and are therefore seen as safer by many drivers.

The convenience factor is obvious. Families are able to fit more easily in them. Transporting 5 or more people is much more comfortable than in a car, truck, and sometimes even a minivan.

All of that makes it sound like the dropping gas prices will rejuvinate the failing market. There are two factors that will prevent it from happening.

1. Those who traded in their SUVs for fuel-efficient vehicles can't trust the drop in gas prices. They are low now, but how long will it last?
2. Manufacturers learned their lesson and have cut production across the board of these vehicles. Lower production means higher demand, which means higher prices, which means more people will lean towards more affordable vehicles, especially with the state of the economy.

Those who have kept their SUVs will continue to keep their SUVs.

Gas prices may have been the catalyst that started the reduction of SUVs on the road, but lowering prices will not change it back. With the environment becoming more of a mainstream issue that touches us all, people started feeling good about their decisions. Even if it was the prices of gas that pulled them our of their SUVs, they still felt like they were making the right decision for the environment as well.

Regardless of what gets people thinking about the environment, it's always difficult to stop thinking about it. Once it's embedded in a person's thoughts, their actions and decisions are normally effected forever.

Fix Detroit? Guaranteed Car Loans and $4 Gas

Last week, on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show, a panel of auto industry observers discussed the future of the United States auto industry. The consensus? Chrysler is on its last legs, and General Motors and Ford will need a bailout to survive.

Dr. Sean McAlinden, chief economist and vice president, Research at the Center for Automotive Research, described his remedy to Detroit’s predicament:

What I think is really needed is a straight flat-out bailout: $15 billion dollars in cash with no restrictions except that it be spent in the United States—to carry these firms through to 2011 when this recession is over, and when their product line is 60 to 70 percent new, and with higher fuel economy, which is what the customer wants.

To set Detroit on the right course toward financial health and high-efficiency vehicles, Warren Brown, automotive writer and "On Wheels" columnist for The Washington Post, outlined an alternative plan:

Forget this crazy argument about socialism versus the free enterprise system. The bottom line is that we’re socialist when we need to be socialist and we’re free enterprise when that works. Right now, we need to be a little socialist.

Since we’re throwing money around anyhow [to rescue the financial sector], one idea could be federal guarantees of consumer loans [for cars], as long as they are for cars that get at least, let’s say, 35 miles per gallon.

To me, that would help accelerate the development of more fuel-efficient vehicles. But in the United States, we had the problem of making demands for more fuel-efficient vehicles, but doing nothing to encourage the purchase of those vehicles.

So let’s have federal subsidized loans of fuel-efficient vehicles. But there’s a catch. Let’s also have a floor under the price of gasoline. Four dollars a gallon seems to have done the job. It helped consumers make more considered judgments of the kinds of cars and trucks they buy. And it has also had some tangible effect on their driving behavior and fuel-wasting habits on the highway. The bottom line is that consumers need some skin in the game.

Oh, by the way, the Department of Energy today released official gas price figures for the week. The national average is now $2.71, exactly $1 less than the price at the beginning of September.

You can listen to the entire discussion from the Diane Rehm Show at the wamu.org website.

Fix Detroit? Guaranteed Car Loans and $4 Gas

Last week, on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show, a panel of auto industry observers discussed the future of the United States auto industry. The consensus? Chrysler is on its last legs, and General Motors and Ford will need a bailout to survive.

Dr. Sean McAlinden, chief economist and vice president, Research at the Center for Automotive Research, described his remedy to Detroit’s predicament:

What I think is really needed is a straight flat-out bailout: $15 billion dollars in cash with no restrictions except that it be spent in the United States—to carry these firms through to 2011 when this recession is over, and when their product line is 60 to 70 percent new, and with higher fuel economy, which is what the customer wants.

To set Detroit on the right course toward financial health and high-efficiency vehicles, Warren Brown, automotive writer and "On Wheels" columnist for The Washington Post, outlined an alternative plan:

Forget this crazy argument about socialism versus the free enterprise system. The bottom line is that we’re socialist when we need to be socialist and we’re free enterprise when that works. Right now, we need to be a little socialist.

Since we’re throwing money around anyhow [to rescue the financial sector], one idea could be federal guarantees of consumer loans [for cars], as long as they are for cars that get at least, let’s say, 35 miles per gallon.

To me, that would help accelerate the development of more fuel-efficient vehicles. But in the United States, we had the problem of making demands for more fuel-efficient vehicles, but doing nothing to encourage the purchase of those vehicles.

So let’s have federal subsidized loans of fuel-efficient vehicles. But there’s a catch. Let’s also have a floor under the price of gasoline. Four dollars a gallon seems to have done the job. It helped consumers make more considered judgments of the kinds of cars and trucks they buy. And it has also had some tangible effect on their driving behavior and fuel-wasting habits on the highway. The bottom line is that consumers need some skin in the game.

Oh, by the way, the Department of Energy today released official gas price figures for the week. The national average is now $2.71, exactly $1 less than the price at the beginning of September.

You can listen to the entire discussion from the Diane Rehm Show at the wamu.org website.

Kite-powered Cargo ship

As known, oil prices are going up and some companies are finding ways to save on this. The DHS cargo company has come out with the kite-powered cargo ship project (that reminds me something of kite-powered). The company that made the SkySails system said that it will help in reducing 30-percent of the oil consumption on a cargo vessel.
Wow 30-percent, that’s a lot, I wondered if I can put a mini version of this kite system on my car, I’m sure it saves more.

[via New Launches]

Kite-powered Cargo ship

As known, oil prices are going up and some companies are finding ways to save on this. The DHS cargo company has come out with the kite-powered cargo ship project (that reminds me something of kite-powered). The company that made the SkySails system said that it will help in reducing 30-percent of the oil consumption on a cargo vessel.
Wow 30-percent, that’s a lot, I wondered if I can put a mini version of this kite system on my car, I’m sure it saves more.

[via New Launches]

Cutting Weight: How Much Gas Does it Save?

Traverse City, Michigan—The change in consumers’ car choices over the last few months has rocked every automaker, import as well as domestic. Toyota’s Bob Carter illustrated the change today with a single, stark statistic: In May and June, more than 50% of the vehicles sold in the U.S. were fitted with four-cylinder engines—for the first time in history, or at least since WW2.

But lost amidst talk of hybrids, plug-in hybrids, full electric vehicles, and techniques like gasoline direct injection, is a simple fact of physics: The greater the weight, the more energy it takes to move.

Or put another way, cutting vehicle weight saves gas. And despite idealistic notions of an entire nation driving Honda Fits, it won’t happen—too many people really do need midsize, full-size, or truck-based vehicles.

So what’s the actual impact of cutting weight? On Tuesday, Michael Bull, director of technology at Novelis Corporation, presented data from two studies that quantified the fuel savings from a given weight reduction.

The first study, conducted by respected British design and consulting firm Ricardo, looked at the fuel savings in different vehicle classes from reducing weight by 10 percent—while keeping performance comparable. The study showed that a 10-percent weight reduction would cut fuel consumption 3 to 4 percent using the same engine. But the savings rose to 6 to 7 percent if the engine was downsized for the lighter weight—and those numbers stayed constant across most vehicle classes, and applied equally to gasoline and diesel engines.

Aluminum is the traditional way to cut weight from a metal body structure. For a midsize car, making “closure panels” (doors, hood, trunk) out of the lighter metal can save 140 lbs, or about 4 percent. Substituting aluminum for major parts of the car’s “body in white,” or base structure, takes savings to 470 pounds, or 12%—and downsizing the drivetrain for the lower weight brings the total reduction to 17 or 18 percent. That improves fuel consumption by 11 or 12 percent.

A second study, from Ibis, then compared the cost-effectiveness of different tactics for reducing weight, comparing gasoline, diesel, and hybrid drivetrains in both steel and aluminum vehicles. With the steel vehicle as the baseline, increasing the aluminum content of the structure cost $44 per unit of mileage—but adding hybrid drive to the steel vehicle cost $259 per mileage unit, with a diesel engine coming in at $192. Combining an aluminum structure with the hybrid drive reduced the cost per mileage unit to $173, and it fell further to $104 with a diesel engine in the aluminum structure.

In other words, cutting weight may be a more cost-effective way to save fuel than adding hybrid-electric drive. In reality, new fuel-economy regulations and carbon constraints will most likely encourage automakers to combine several techniques in the same vehicle.

But it’s noteworthy that Ford—whose CEO formerly worked at Boeing, where every ounce mattered in its products—has cited weight reduction as one of its five core strategies for sustainability. Even more significant, last month Toray Industries, Nissan, and Honda agreed to work together on developing carbon fiber for auto bodies, with the goal of replacing most of the steel in a car body—for a projected weight savings of 40 percent.

Cutting Weight: How Much Gas Does it Save?

Traverse City, Michigan—The change in consumers’ car choices over the last few months has rocked every automaker, import as well as domestic. Toyota’s Bob Carter illustrated the change today with a single, stark statistic: In May and June, more than 50% of the vehicles sold in the U.S. were fitted with four-cylinder engines—for the first time in history, or at least since WW2.

But lost amidst talk of hybrids, plug-in hybrids, full electric vehicles, and techniques like gasoline direct injection, is a simple fact of physics: The greater the weight, the more energy it takes to move.

Or put another way, cutting vehicle weight saves gas. And despite idealistic notions of an entire nation driving Honda Fits, it won’t happen—too many people really do need midsize, full-size, or truck-based vehicles.

So what’s the actual impact of cutting weight? On Tuesday, Michael Bull, director of technology at Novelis Corporation, presented data from two studies that quantified the fuel savings from a given weight reduction.

The first study, conducted by respected British design and consulting firm Ricardo, looked at the fuel savings in different vehicle classes from reducing weight by 10 percent—while keeping performance comparable. The study showed that a 10-percent weight reduction would cut fuel consumption 3 to 4 percent using the same engine. But the savings rose to 6 to 7 percent if the engine was downsized for the lighter weight—and those numbers stayed constant across most vehicle classes, and applied equally to gasoline and diesel engines.

Aluminum is the traditional way to cut weight from a metal body structure. For a midsize car, making “closure panels” (doors, hood, trunk) out of the lighter metal can save 140 lbs, or about 4 percent. Substituting aluminum for major parts of the car’s “body in white,” or base structure, takes savings to 470 pounds, or 12%—and downsizing the drivetrain for the lower weight brings the total reduction to 17 or 18 percent. That improves fuel consumption by 11 or 12 percent.

A second study, from Ibis, then compared the cost-effectiveness of different tactics for reducing weight, comparing gasoline, diesel, and hybrid drivetrains in both steel and aluminum vehicles. With the steel vehicle as the baseline, increasing the aluminum content of the structure cost $44 per unit of mileage—but adding hybrid drive to the steel vehicle cost $259 per mileage unit, with a diesel engine coming in at $192. Combining an aluminum structure with the hybrid drive reduced the cost per mileage unit to $173, and it fell further to $104 with a diesel engine in the aluminum structure.

In other words, cutting weight may be a more cost-effective way to save fuel than adding hybrid-electric drive. In reality, new fuel-economy regulations and carbon constraints will most likely encourage automakers to combine several techniques in the same vehicle.

But it’s noteworthy that Ford—whose CEO formerly worked at Boeing, where every ounce mattered in its products—has cited weight reduction as one of its five core strategies for sustainability. Even more significant, last month Toray Industries, Nissan, and Honda agreed to work together on developing carbon fiber for auto bodies, with the goal of replacing most of the steel in a car body—for a projected weight savings of 40 percent.

Car Owners may rake in $2,000 to ditch gas guzzlers

Do you think Archie would trade his trusty old jalopy for new shiny wheels even if the government gave him £1,000 ($2,000)? Incentives and cash is what the British Government plans on offering its citizens to dump old fuel inefficient cars. Apparently a similar scheme is up in France and the Brits want experiment it on their public. Due to the increase vehicle excise duty for people owning cars bought between 2001 and 2006, the citizens have been criticizing the government. More than one million people will see their road tax double and offering people money to switch vehicles may be the right option.Just to let you know, Texas motorists can receive vouchers worth more than $3,500 towards a hybrid car if a polluting vehicle is ditched. From next year, Canadians will get $300 or subsidized bicycles or public transport.

Car Owners may rake in $2,000 to ditch gas guzzlers

Do you think Archie would trade his trusty old jalopy for new shiny wheels even if the government gave him £1,000 ($2,000)? Incentives and cash is what the British Government plans on offering its citizens to dump old fuel inefficient cars. Apparently a similar scheme is up in France and the Brits want experiment it on their public. Due to the increase vehicle excise duty for people owning cars bought between 2001 and 2006, the citizens have been criticizing the government. More than one million people will see their road tax double and offering people money to switch vehicles may be the right option.Just to let you know, Texas motorists can receive vouchers worth more than $3,500 towards a hybrid car if a polluting vehicle is ditched. From next year, Canadians will get $300 or subsidized bicycles or public transport.

SHIFT: Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a fraud

Who wouldn’t like the idea of a fuel cell car running on clean, pure hydrogen, the universe’s most plentiful element? Its byproduct is sparkling, drinkable water, with none of that pesky pollution spewing out the tailpipe. And then if there's any energy left over when you're done driving, why, you could use that car's fuel cell to power your house! We can get rid of gasoline! And fuel cells, hey, they use those in spacecraft, don't they? This is some modern stuff, and at first glance, hydrogen appears to be a viable solution to all our energy problems.

Well, think again. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are a dumb idea, and those who are pushing them are frauds. They want to advance their own agendas, and couldn’t care less whether their cars are practical or not. They just want to make more money. In fact, their tired ideas for fuel cell vehicles have already been left in the dust by electric and hybrid vehicles, and there are a lot of good reasons why.


Not for Sale
Fuel cell cars are available today. But wait, you can’t really buy the Honda FCX Clarity — you must rent it for $600 a month. Why? Because if this wasn’t a publicity stunt, you’d have to buy the FCX for its real cost. The car makers are secretive about how much it's costing to build these vehicles, but you can bet it's well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece.

To give you an idea, mass producing a fuel cell-powered bus is going to cost $200,000 extra just for the engine, according to its designers at Caltech and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Pretty good, though, considering that just two years ago, the average cost of a fuel cell vehicle was a cool million dollars.

This huge cost issue is just the tip of this expensive iceberg. While some companies that are seeking funding for their fuel cell vehicle schemes say otherwise, the cars are notoriously impractical. I smell boondoggle.



Is Hydrogen a Fuel?
No, hydrogen is not really a fuel, but an energy storage medium. It's more akin to a battery that soaks up energy when it’s extracted from something else, and then delivers that energy when it’s used. And, it takes a lot of energy to create that hydrogen. The energy must come from other sources, such as natural gas, or elaborate electrolysis using platinum membranes that separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water, using, um, electricity. What? Using electricity to make hydrogen that's then turned back into electricity? Yes, it’s the laws of physics at work, where you have to put in energy to get some out. So you must use electricity or gas (or maybe solar energy) to make this stuff. So yeah, it works like a battery, except a whole lot more expensive. Why not just charge up an electric car instead?


Can’t we just mine hydrogen from the ground?
No, there's no such thing as a hydrogen well. It doesn’t just gather in one place like oil or natural gas does, but quickly dissipates into the atmosphere because of its simple atomic structure. Because of that number-one position on the periodic table, hydrogen is difficult to store and corrodes pipes. It’s a clever escape artist, and can even slip between the molecules of steel or aluminum containers. So hydrogen can't be stored long-term — it must be created on the spot by stripping it from other molecules.

These fuel cell cars need four times the volume to store an amount of energy equal to that of gasoline. Even though the energy-generating equivalent of hydrogen is lighter than its gasoline counterpart, you need a 60 gallon tank to store the same amount of energy that’s in 15 gallons of gasoline. These cars won’t go far before it’s time for more hydrogen.


Where will you get that hydrogen?
The oil companies would like to provide the infrastructure for such a “hydrogen economy.” The oil companies say to you, "No, don’t use electricity from your house to charge up that electric vehicle — depend on the oil company’s filling stations to get where you want to go, as you’ve always done."

Good luck with that, though, because so far there’s just one retail hydrogen station in the U.S. (run by, you guessed it, an oil company), far short of the thousands needed to make this hydrogen economy anything more than a pipe dream. The other experimental stations are nothing but showboat propaganda fronts that expend far more energy than they create. Anyway, the oil companies would be happy to invest in that costly infrastructure, because they know they'll get their money back. But it'll be coming out of your hide, just like it always has.


Plenty of Guff
There are a variety of impractical ideas for using hydrogen to propel cars, but they're years — and maybe even decades — from being cost-effective. Most of these schemes seem to suspiciously somehow involve the oil companies keeping their greedy paws in the “hydrogen economy.” To give you an idea, one great proponent of the “hydrogen economy” is energy expert, former oilman and conservation guru George W. Bush.


Somewhere Over the Rainbow
We're all for innovation, but the fantasy of cost-effective hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is just a distraction from the real work that needs to be done: perfecting electric and hybrid natural gas/electric vehicles, charged by electricity generated by clean and renewable nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power. These technologies are here now, and the associated batteries are getting more efficient at a rate that’s significantly faster than the snail's pace of impractical fuel cell technology. Maybe someday hydrogen fuel cells will be practical for personal vehicles, but not today, and not for a long time to come. Don’t be fooled by the self-serving frauds that keep trying to tell you otherwise.

SHIFT: Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are a fraud

Who wouldn’t like the idea of a fuel cell car running on clean, pure hydrogen, the universe’s most plentiful element? Its byproduct is sparkling, drinkable water, with none of that pesky pollution spewing out the tailpipe. And then if there's any energy left over when you're done driving, why, you could use that car's fuel cell to power your house! We can get rid of gasoline! And fuel cells, hey, they use those in spacecraft, don't they? This is some modern stuff, and at first glance, hydrogen appears to be a viable solution to all our energy problems.

Well, think again. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are a dumb idea, and those who are pushing them are frauds. They want to advance their own agendas, and couldn’t care less whether their cars are practical or not. They just want to make more money. In fact, their tired ideas for fuel cell vehicles have already been left in the dust by electric and hybrid vehicles, and there are a lot of good reasons why.


Not for Sale
Fuel cell cars are available today. But wait, you can’t really buy the Honda FCX Clarity — you must rent it for $600 a month. Why? Because if this wasn’t a publicity stunt, you’d have to buy the FCX for its real cost. The car makers are secretive about how much it's costing to build these vehicles, but you can bet it's well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece.

To give you an idea, mass producing a fuel cell-powered bus is going to cost $200,000 extra just for the engine, according to its designers at Caltech and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Pretty good, though, considering that just two years ago, the average cost of a fuel cell vehicle was a cool million dollars.

This huge cost issue is just the tip of this expensive iceberg. While some companies that are seeking funding for their fuel cell vehicle schemes say otherwise, the cars are notoriously impractical. I smell boondoggle.



Is Hydrogen a Fuel?
No, hydrogen is not really a fuel, but an energy storage medium. It's more akin to a battery that soaks up energy when it’s extracted from something else, and then delivers that energy when it’s used. And, it takes a lot of energy to create that hydrogen. The energy must come from other sources, such as natural gas, or elaborate electrolysis using platinum membranes that separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water, using, um, electricity. What? Using electricity to make hydrogen that's then turned back into electricity? Yes, it’s the laws of physics at work, where you have to put in energy to get some out. So you must use electricity or gas (or maybe solar energy) to make this stuff. So yeah, it works like a battery, except a whole lot more expensive. Why not just charge up an electric car instead?


Can’t we just mine hydrogen from the ground?
No, there's no such thing as a hydrogen well. It doesn’t just gather in one place like oil or natural gas does, but quickly dissipates into the atmosphere because of its simple atomic structure. Because of that number-one position on the periodic table, hydrogen is difficult to store and corrodes pipes. It’s a clever escape artist, and can even slip between the molecules of steel or aluminum containers. So hydrogen can't be stored long-term — it must be created on the spot by stripping it from other molecules.

These fuel cell cars need four times the volume to store an amount of energy equal to that of gasoline. Even though the energy-generating equivalent of hydrogen is lighter than its gasoline counterpart, you need a 60 gallon tank to store the same amount of energy that’s in 15 gallons of gasoline. These cars won’t go far before it’s time for more hydrogen.


Where will you get that hydrogen?
The oil companies would like to provide the infrastructure for such a “hydrogen economy.” The oil companies say to you, "No, don’t use electricity from your house to charge up that electric vehicle — depend on the oil company’s filling stations to get where you want to go, as you’ve always done."

Good luck with that, though, because so far there’s just one retail hydrogen station in the U.S. (run by, you guessed it, an oil company), far short of the thousands needed to make this hydrogen economy anything more than a pipe dream. The other experimental stations are nothing but showboat propaganda fronts that expend far more energy than they create. Anyway, the oil companies would be happy to invest in that costly infrastructure, because they know they'll get their money back. But it'll be coming out of your hide, just like it always has.


Plenty of Guff
There are a variety of impractical ideas for using hydrogen to propel cars, but they're years — and maybe even decades — from being cost-effective. Most of these schemes seem to suspiciously somehow involve the oil companies keeping their greedy paws in the “hydrogen economy.” To give you an idea, one great proponent of the “hydrogen economy” is energy expert, former oilman and conservation guru George W. Bush.


Somewhere Over the Rainbow
We're all for innovation, but the fantasy of cost-effective hydrogen fuel cell vehicles is just a distraction from the real work that needs to be done: perfecting electric and hybrid natural gas/electric vehicles, charged by electricity generated by clean and renewable nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power. These technologies are here now, and the associated batteries are getting more efficient at a rate that’s significantly faster than the snail's pace of impractical fuel cell technology. Maybe someday hydrogen fuel cells will be practical for personal vehicles, but not today, and not for a long time to come. Don’t be fooled by the self-serving frauds that keep trying to tell you otherwise.