So we shouldn't talk about a real, documented psychological phenomenon? People buy, and don't buy cars for all sorts of irrational reasons.

Witness the minivan. They are much more spacious and fuel efficient than any SUV, yet there is a negative psychological stigma attached to driving one - so more people buy SUVs.

Range anxiety exists, and the only way to dispel it is for the manufacturers to be completely honest about the limitations of pure battery-powered cars. Early adopters will certainly forgive those faults, and those same early adopters will be greatly responsible for shaping public perceptions of what BEVs can be. I have no doubt that battery tech will improve, and that "range anxiety" will eventually become minimal as drivers begin to have faith in their battery power.

We already know that different driving styles shorten or extend range, even in a modern ICE powered car. My GF and I shared driving to Nashville recently, and she was able to get quite a few more mpgs than me, because she doesn't drive as fast as I do.

As for FCHVs, well, they get the best of all worlds. Charge the batteries up, drive as a pure BEV. When the battery drops below charge, the FC range extender kicks in. The hydrogen fueling infrastructure is coming...

The PGNV was a success in many aspects, but it also was a failure in its primary goal. The cars cost more than their targets, and they still didn't meet the future emissions standards.

"At the same time, the DOE retired the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) program. The original PNGV objective was to develop an affordable, 80 mpg (2.94 l/100 km) family sedan by 2004. The National Research Council concluded in a recent PNGV review that the program was not likely to reach its goal. The government PNGV spending amounted to $814 million, while the industry - General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler - spent over $980 million.

In what appears to be a lack of coordination between different branches of the U.S. government, emissions became a big stumbling block contributing to the failure of PNGV. The PNGV engineering emission objectives had been set at 0.16 g/mi NOx and 0.027 g/mi PM, while the EPA’s Tier 2 emission standards require a fleet average NOx limit of 0.07 g/mi and 0.2 g/mi NOx and 0.02 g/mi PM emission limits in the most relaxed permanent certification bin 8. In order to be commercially viable, vehicles would likely need to be certified at least in the bin 5 of 0.07 g/mi NOx and 0.01 g/mi PM. In effect, the PNGV research was developing vehicles that would not meet emission standards that come to power in 2004."

http://www.thewaytube.com/news/2002/01doe.php

The FreedomCar program regeared from trying to refine ICEs to improving non-emitting powerplants - specifically fuel cells and batteries. In this goal, fuel cells have made greater progress, meeting all goals established for eventual commercial production, while at the same time complementary battery, electric motor, and control systems have also been vastly improved. The overall goals of reducing environmental pollution and reducing the need for fossil fuels are being met.

"The Partnership addresses:

* Integrated systems analysis
* Fuel cell power systems
* Hydrogen storage systems
* Technologies for the production and distribution of hydrogen necessary for the viability of hydrogen vehicles
* The technical basis for codes and standards to support hydrogen vehicles and infrastructure and the interface between them
* Electric propulsion systems applicable to both fuel cell and internal combustion/electric hybrid vehicles (e.g., power electronics, electric motors)
* Lightweight materials
* Electrical energy storage systems (e.g., batteries, power capacitors)
* Advanced combustion and emission control systems for internal combustion engines (employing a variety of fuels such as diesel, hydrogen, and renewable blends, and investigating innovative concepts such as homogeneous charge compression ignition systems, variable compression ratio, in-cylinder exhaust gas recirculation, etc.)"

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/about/partnerships/freedomcar/index.html

We should be proud of what the FreedomCar Program has accomplished. The PGNV program was a stepping stone to making the decision to go more electric, and the FreedomCar partnership has moved electric cars - FCHVs and BEVs - to the cusp of commercial production.

If Boyprodigy1 actually listened to the smarter people, he would already know what the plan is:

BEVs for short-range commuter use, PHEVs (including FCHVs) for medium/long range, while the ICE is continually improved (HCCI, Scuderi cycle).

Smart people don't limit themselves to just one option.

"Have one person sniff gasoline every 60 seconds, and have another person sniff ethanol every 60 seconds. And see which one drops dead first."

The study is based on the results of burning ethanol, not sniffing it.

We all agree that gasoline combustion (all fossil fuels) results in emissions that are detrimental to human health and the environment. Alcohol fuels, biofuels, indeed anything actually BURNED results in some level of toxic exhaust.

There are currently two potential ways of powering automobiles that produce no tailpipe emissions: batteries and fuel cells. The electricity for batteries, and the hydrogen (or other hydrogen-source) for fuel cells can be potentially generated through emission-free renewable sources. At the present, neither electricity or hydrogen is produced cleanly, but both can still dramatically reduce the amount of GHGs and other pollutants because of sequestration methods that can be applied at the central production source.

Ethanol's relation to pollution is not just when it is burned, either:

"Ethanol refineries discharge chemicals and salts that can contaminate drinking water and endanger fish and other aquatic life, according to a Government Accountability Office report released Monday.

Biodiesel refineries release pollutants such as glycerin, which disrupts the microbial cleaning processes used in wastewater treatment, the report noted.
Storage of ethanol is also a concern. “Ethanol is highly corrosive and there is potential for releases into the environment that could contaminate groundwater and surface water,” the GAO said.

The U.S. government is encouraging increased biofuel use to reduce dependence on imported oil, mandating that ethanol's share of vehicle fuel content grow to 15 billion gallons, or an estimated 10% of all fuel sold by 2015. Total use of biofuels could grow to as much as 20% by 2022 as mandates kick in for the use for “advanced” biofuels, including those made from algae, grasses and nonedible plant material.

The GAO warned that biofuels developed from corn, such as ethanol, have a particularly significant impact on water quality because corn requires heavy use of irrigated water, fertilizers and pesticides. Fertilizer runoff can lead to aquatic “dead zones,” sometimes even hundreds of miles from the farm, the report said."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/12/ethanol-biodiesel-linked-to-water-pollution.html

Don't like the Stanford study? Here's one from the DOE/Argonne Nat. Labs.(from 1997!):

"A recent field study in Albuquerque, N.M., published this month in Environmental Science & Technology, showed that use of ethanol fuels leads to increased levels of toxins called aldehydes and peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN).

Aldehydes are much more reactive in the atmosphere than the alcohols they are made from. They react with other chemicals in urban atmospheres to set off chemical reactions leading to PAN.

Argonne scientists have found that once created, PAN can last for many days in the air if the conditions -- especially temperature -- are right. When it's cold, its lifetime is longer.

PAN is highly toxic to plants and is a powerful eye irritant. It has been measured in many areas of the world, indicating that it can be carried by winds throughout the globe.

"Although these pollutants are not currently regulated," said Argonne chemist Jeff Gaffney, "their potential health and environmental effects should be considered in determining the impact of alternative fuels on air quality."

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/1997/A/199700109.html

This story just staggers the imagination based on the pollution this ethanol plant released:

"An ethanol plant near Oshkosh, Wisconsin, has been sued under the Clean Water Act's (CWA) citizen suit provision (33 U.S.C. §1365(f)) for allegedly dumping approximately 170,000 gallons of effluent a day into the Fox River and Lake Winnebago.

That breaks down to about 62 million gallons of wastewater containing effluent per year, for the plant that produces approximately 50 million gallons of ethanol annually. The plant had been notified of numerous permit violations by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), but failed to respond, so the plaintiff, a local conservation group filed suit in federal court alleging that the plant was in violation of the CWA.

The plaintiff claims that the plant dumped excessive amounts of chlorine, phosphorous, oil, grease, zinc and other chemicals into CWA-jurisdictional waters for more than six years."

http://www.midwestadvocates.org/media/coverage/2009/4-14-09%20Iowa%20State%20University%20Center%20for%20Agricultural%20Law%20and%20Taxation%20-%20Ethanol%20Plant%20Sued%20for%20Pollution.html

Oh, yes the same old talking points, once again...

Here's what's actually happening:

United States:

http://www.iphe.net/docs/Meetings/USA_12-09/Country_Presentations/DOE%20Overview%20IPHE%202009%20Satyapal.pdf

Germany:

http://www.iphe.net/docs/Meetings/USA_12-09/Country_Presentations/Germany%20Country%20report%20ILC%20SC%20Washington.pdf

Japan:

http://www.iphe.net/docs/Meetings/USA_12-09/Country_Presentations/Japan.pdf

"...our best possibility of moving beyond petroleum."

Once you recognize that this is an opinion, then you might be able to accept that other people have differing opinions.

My opinion is well known: BEVs for short range commuting, FCHVs for longer distance. ICEs of all flavors will gradually phase out over the next 50 years or so...

Remember, the Coskata Bio-Ethanol plant produces hydrogen (as syngas) first, and then uses the syngas to make the ethanol. Why not just purify and sell the hydrogen? It seems to me that Coskata has a back-up strategy so they'll be ready when FCHVs hit the market over the next decade.

"Alcohol fuel contains no carcinogens..."

You've missed the point of the article. It's not what's in alcohol before it burns, it's what results from burning it.

"There are other pollutants that would increase in the atmosphere from burning E85 instead of gasoline, some of which are irritants to eyes, throats and lungs, and that can also damage crops, but the aldehydes are the biggest contributors to ozone production, as well as being carcinogenic."

I'm pretty sure this is the same study (at least it gets the same results) as in some links I provided to you previously....

"Companies that sponsor these Hydrogen Stations (Chevron, BP, Shell) are only interested in profiting from their natural gas resources. Therefore they primarily seek to produce hydrogen from hydrocarbon reformation."

Just because that's what you think, doesn't mean it's true. Shell is also expanding into non-fossil fuel based hydrogen production.

" Shell Hydrogen LLC (Shell Hydrogen) and Virent Energy Systems, Inc. (VirentTM) have announced a five-year joint development agreement to develop further and commercialize Virent's BioFormingTM technology platform for hydrogen production.

Virent's technology enables the economic production of hydrogen, among other fuels and chemicals, from renewable glycerol and sugar-based feedstocks."

http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/165348235.html

BP is very involved in solar, and Chevron is investing in geothermal as well. But that's really irrelevant.

The reason the oil companies are into hydrogen is because they've already being producing, storing, and transporting hydrogen for decades on an industrial level. It only make sense that they would want to increase the market for a product they already sell.

Hydrogen from waste streams might be small in volume compared to the 42 million tons produced every year (9 million tons used in the US alone), but it should not be overlooked, especially because it is effectively "free" - it would otherwise just be vented into the atmosphere and only requires purification and compression.

HTEC will be providing some of the H2 used during the Winter Olympics (the rest will be produced via electrolysis from hydro).

"Contributing member HTEC Hydrogen Technology & Energy Corporation (HTEC) has designed and built a hydrogen capture and processing facility at Newalta’s oil recycling plant.

The site is ideal due to its proximity to ERCO WorldWide’s sodium chlorate plant and Canexus’ chlor-alkali facility both of which produce by-product hydrogen streams. The total byproduct hydrogen generated by the two operations exceeds 1000kg/hr with over 600 kg presently being vented.

HTEC’s plant is designed to provide 20kg/hr of purified hydrogen at Grade 5 (99.999%) purity and at pressures of 6550psig. The hydrogen supply is available as of fall 2006 to IWHUP and other hydrogen users."

http://www.sacre-davey.com/files/iwhup_executive_summary.pdf

Nicholas

Nobody is going to take away your ability to buy a BEV. I would be very happy for you to buy one.

However, if someone else would like to make, sell, or purchase a hydrogen powered vehicle, they should also be allowed to.

Support freedom of choice.