By Bob Hartley, hartley_@_phy.duke.edu

June 12, 2002

Replace "_@_" with "@" in email address to flame me.

Why must we (the U.S. taxpayers) spend $millions$ on prototype fuel-cell cars that can barely get mileage equivalent to older cars while running on supposedly clean "hydrogen-fuel?"

The mass media's fascination with fuel-cell powered cars is understandable. The promise of "clean, cheap energy from water" has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it makes better fiction than reality. Hydrogen-powered cars just emit their pollution elsewhere.

In any chemical reaction like the one that powers your car, energy must be conserved; meaning that the energy must "come from" somewhere. So where does the hydrogen "fuel" for a fuel-cell car come from? Two possible sources are

• Water - plentiful and everywhere.
• & Methane - while the U.S. has some methane reserves, we would need to import it from "non-friendlies" in order to meet current (and future) demand.

Let's look at water. First of all, the hydrogen molecules in water are strongly bound to oxygen. Therefore, it takes (substantial) energy to split water into useful hydrogen (used by the fuel cell) and oxygen molecules. The majority of that energy - in America - is derived from coal power. If you take into account that a significant minority of the power grid in America is also nuclear, we have traded a clean-burning gasoline engine for nuclear and coal powered fuel-cells. Since so-called "greens" would never advocate more nuclear power - even though that would be the best solution - we can't and won't power fuel-cell cars from water-derived hydrogen.

If, instead, we power the car by reducing methane (CH₄), then we have merely traded one energy source (gasoline) for another (methane) that is far less efficient -- and therefore produces MORE carbon-dioxide per mile traveled than gasoline! Not to mention that we would have to send our troops to the same regions from which we currently get our oil to keep dictators in line. We would merely trade one ball-and-shackle (gasoline) for another (methane) that produces more of the so-called greenhouse gases!

What is the solution?

Surely, I am not advocating SUV's in every driveway (Sean Hannity!) and I certainly am not advocating a Gore-nola inspired reduction of roads, cars, and vehicle capacity. The solution is simple and two fold:

• First, we MUST exploit all domestic sources of gasoline.
• And second, we MUST conserve the energy that we do have and use it smartly.

Exhibit (1) against fuel-cell cars: a late 1990's Chrisley Sebring 2.0L 5-speed manual averages 38 mpg at 75 mph, burns clean, costs less than $20,000 new, and does not run on coal or nuclear power!

For domestic oil sources, we must include ANWR, the Florida everglades, the Gulf of Mexico, Prudhoe Bay, and yes, even Texas. This will delay the inevitable world-wide depletion of oil and oil-derivatives. Incomprehensibly, Bush-43 spent our tax dollars on buying out leases to make sure that we never get energy from the Everglades, increasing our dependance on countries like Iraq, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to supply us with oil.

Knowing that the world will eventually consume all available oil, we must institute conservation measures and we must institute them today. This means a substantial increase in the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. This also means taxing the bejeezus out of inefficient vehicles; or, more appealingly, giving tax credits to vehicles that are more efficient. Why drive a V10 gasoline-powered cargo van when a V6-diesel/electric hybrid will haul just as much with half the fuel consumption? If the public does not make the connection that increased consumption means increased vulnerability to the whims of foreign dictators, then they will need to understand that inefficient vehicles will make an even larger dent in their pocketbook.

We have to get over the notion that rampant consumption is equivalent to patriotism. For every Ford Excursion that is used to transport just two people to the shopping mall, another U.S. soldier has to spend Christmas in wonderful, exotic places like Saudi Arabia.

Exhibit (2): a mid-80's 4-barrel carburated, V8-powered muscle car, with a 5-speed manual and drag-racing gears (3.73:1 rear axle ratio) pulls 30 mpg at 65 mph. AND, it is just as emissions-friendly as the new Sebring, passing the emissions test with flying colors (< 10.2% carbon-dioxide, < 0.00% carbon-monoxide, 65 ppm hydrocarbons). This is on an engine with 150,000 original miles with 0-60 times in the low 7 seconds. The engine design dates from the original 1956 Chevrolet Small-block.

But, some people (e.g., tradesmen, large animal vets, etc.) actually NEED trucks; therefore, they are not the only target for better conservation. For example, the VW Jetta is available with three engines. Both the 2.8L V6 and the 1.8L turbo get 31 mpg hw, with the turbo getting slightly better mileage in town. This is a very respectable amount compared to other gas guzzlers. However, they outsell the Jetta 1.9L TDI diesel - which gets 49 mpg hw and is less expensive to boot - by a factor of 10 to 1!

Turbulence modeling by computers is now at the point where engineers can extract almost 100 hp per litre on computer-designed, normally aspirated gasoline engines. The mathematics and computational power to do this was not available even 5 years ago. Soon, VW will bring a 900 hp Bugatti to the European market. And GM will introduce an engine in the 400 hp Corvette that deactivates half of the cylinders, allowing this monster car to get gas mileage similar to a Toyota Corolla. Imagine if there was a better incentive to bring the first family car to market that gets 80 mpg and outruns the current crap that passes for a family sedan imported from overseas.

The question becomes, "Why do we, as a society, place so little value on the lives our soldiers that we send them to unfriendly territories to safeguard our unquenchable lust for energy? Why do we buy the least efficient product when other, functionally identical products are available at little or no price premium?"

Inexplicibly, the Senate has simultaneously killed drilling for oil in ANWR and voted not to increase fuel economy standards. Their message to the public is, "We're running out of energy, better use what we have quickly!" It reminds me of the episode of "Get Smart!" when The Chief and Maxwell Smart are locked in an airtight vault. Smart begins doing jumping jacks saying, "You use your half of the air the way you want, and I'll use my half the way I want!" Current U.S. energy policy is not any different.