If there was a good reason to unseat Gregoire and the rest of the pack (Cantwell, Murray, Sims, Nickles...), it should be their allowing Washington State to slide into a technological backwater by ignoring the new Hydrogen Economy.
Currently a hydrogen road tour, of fuel cell and standard engine cars running on hydrogen is touring the country...but it won't come to Washington. The FCX Clarity is being leased (mostly to Hollywood hotshots) in LA...the BMW Hydrogen 7 is for sale (Will Ferrell has one).
Why? Well one reason is that while The Schwartz has been building an entire statewide Hydrogen Highway in California, Washington has not a single station.
Look it up for all of WA:
http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/fuelingSearch.asp
Results:
Hydrogen Fueling Stations: Results
No results found.
Posted by jabailo at August 18, 2008 10:18 AM | Email ThisShould she spend taxpayer dollars to build this hydrogen fuel network? Sounds kind of liberal to me.
Posted by: Andrew Brown on August 19, 2008 09:01 AMGovernment can support, encourage and provide tax incentives, ala California. It can partner universities and businesses.
The Lite Rail Choo-Choo train is costing billions and billions. Think of how much we could do if only a small fraction of this went to Hydrogen liasoning!
Posted by: John Bailo on August 19, 2008 11:33 AM
" * Chapter 91, statutes of 2005 (Senate Bill 76) - $6.5 million in funding was allocated to the Air Resources Board for state-sponsored hydrogen demonstration projects. This funding will help co-fund 3 new hydrogen stations that meet the Blueprint Plan’s environmental targets. The funding will also allow the State to procure hydrogen-powered vehicles and shuttle buses.
* 2006/2007 State Budget - Another $6.5 million was included in the 2006/2007 State budget for the continued development of hydrogen stations and for funds to match Federal funding to bring hydrogen buses to California.
* 2007/2008 State Budget - Another $6.09 million was included in the 2006/2007 State budget for the continued development of hydrogen stations and for funds to match Federal funding to bring hydrogen buses to California."
http://www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov/policy_funding/policy_funding.htm
Posted by: John Bailo on August 19, 2008 11:38 AMhttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20080113/ai_n21201101
"This is a significant change in attitude. People are simply refusing to participate, even if they get money from the state. If state officials don't step in the hydrogen highway could collapse," said V. John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Technologies.
http://www.calsmallbusinessalliance.org/NEWS/hydrohwy.html
In February, the state Legislative Analyst's Office, a non-partisan agency, recommended the Legislature not fund the program this year because "the administration has little visible progress to show."
The reasons vary, depending on who is offering explanations.
Large corporations that traditionally sell energy, like oil companies and utilities, have not stepped forward to take the state matching money to build stations. Some experts familiar with the program say that there are not enough hydrogen cars yet to justify the expense.
Again, this is one of those vicious problems that you can't just solve with "a pittance". I'm all for solutions that will provide benefits to the environment, but assuming that not investing small amounts of funding is "sliding into a technological backwater"? That's a bit much.
Posted by: demo kid on August 19, 2008 05:41 PMOf course PG&E isn't going to fund hydrogen stations, when they could be making a mint juicing up hybrid and electric cars!
Posted by: John Bailo on August 19, 2008 07:29 PM"The cost to build the entire hydrogen infrastructure (pipelines, fueling stations, etc.) will likely be hundreds of billions of dollars. Many people have asked: how are we going to pay for this?
The answer is by including the loan payments that pay for the cost to build the hydrogen pipelines and fueling stations in the cost of each kilogram of hydrogen that is sold. This is much like how most people make monthly mortgage payments over 15 or 30 years to pay for their houses.
However, as mentioned in the Hydrogen Manhattan Project, the U.S. federal government will need to provide the funding to build the initial hydrogen fueling stations. In order to mass produce the hydrogen cars, the car companies must know for sure that a certain number of hydrogen fueling stations will be in place. The free market could then take over from this point, because companies could profit from building and operating the hydrogen pipelines and fueling stations even without any subsidies."
It's just those last mile fueling stations we need...hell, the Gates Foundation could probably do it with a measly $100 million grant (and make a profit in the process...)
http://www.h2andyou.org/pdf/nightLights.pdf
Posted by: John Bailo on August 20, 2008 07:29 PMI also have a thread going on here in my forum about what I call the "Hydrogen Opening Move" (in contrast to the "Oil Endgame"):
http://you-read-it-here-first.com/viewtopic.php?t=1118&sid=73a5d22aef68e2f0326f5de784c72a9f
Posted by: John Bailo on August 21, 2008 05:57 PMFirst, it isn't as if the current production of hydrogen is being allocated to 150 million fuel cell vehicles right now... there are actually, you know, uses for that production.
You can ramp up that production, but if you're using oil, coal or even natural gas-fired power plants to produce that hydrogen, you're not really getting much of anything from changing over. In terms of existing infrastructure, there's a certain amount of lock-in that would favor plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles over hydrogen... you'd need to build much more new infrastructure to support hydrogen.
And then there's the classic "chicken-and-egg" problem... companies aren't going to sink money into hydrogen infrastructure without the demand, and consumers aren't going to buy fuel cell cars without supply.
I don't disagree with some of your statements, of course. I think that there are benefits to using hydrogen as a fuel. But this is a classic case where the free market is just not suited for a large-scale reconfiguration of the market. If the infrastructure was there, I think that hydrogen fuel and fuel cell vehicles would take off like no one's business. There is practically no advantage, though, to being the first-mover in this situation, and the pittance allocated by the California government is doing little to change that.
So, if there is a public interest to switching over fuels, there needs to be government intervention to make this happen.
Posted by: demo kid on August 22, 2008 10:10 AM"The stop on the tour after Portland was here at the headquarters of Nuvera Fuel Cells and now the home of the first hydrogen refueling station in the state."
Can it get any more embarassing?!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10015123-54.html
Posted by: John Bailo on August 22, 2008 11:50 AM"Right now, however, there are only 16 hydrogen refueling stations in the U.S., used by hundreds of consumers."
Again... I'm at a loss as to what you're trying to prove here.
Posted by: demo kid on August 22, 2008 03:27 PM