The Right Fuel for the Future

We passed the peak of the Hubbert Curve for oil production in the U. S. in 1970 and
by some

estimates have passed the Hubbert peak for worldwide oil production in 2010. The
late Dr. M.

King Hubbert, geophysicist, was an authority on the estimation of energy reserves

and on the

prediction of their patterns of discovery and depletion.

His spring 1956 prediction of the peak of U.S. oil production in 1970 at the meeting
of the

Southern District of the American Petroleum Institute was not well accepted by his
audience.

Nonetheless, his prediction proved remarkably accurate. With new discoveries like
shale oil

and the oil under the Arctic shelf, the vision for peaking worldwide oil production is
a bit

murkier, but we are about there. Oils days are numbered as indicated in this
worldwide Exxon

Mobil chart:

Note that since about 1983, global oil consumption/production (black line) for Exxon
Mobil is

above global discovery. Similar charts are available for all companies discoveries.

Our global community, our Earth home, is being forced to take a new step in
sourcing and using

energy. Green, renewable and local are words that come to mind when
contemplating this new

energy. The future energy scenario proposed here is probable, desirable, and a
happy ending

to the present day political, economic, and technical turmoil over dwindling oil-
based fuels.

We should note, before we decide what fuel is right for us from now on, that fuels
and car
technology are evolutionary, not revolutionary, and that there is nothing new under
the sun.

y Electric cars were the most popular cars built in 1901 and 1902 and lasted into

the 1920s

yE.g., the 1903 Krieger had electric and gasoline power and front wheel

drive. This was the worlds first hybrid vehicle.

y The first batteries used in earlier electric vehicles were not even

rechargeable

yFuel cells have been around since 1839

yHydrogen-oxygen fuel cells were used for power on the U.S. Apollo Moon

Missions through 1972

y The first automobile powered by a fuel cell occurred on April 24, 1998, in Palm

Desert, CA

In October 2001, a month after 9/11, I sent letters to President George W. Bush,
Spencer

Abrahams, Head of Department of Energy, and Christie Whitman, head of the

Environmental

Protection Agency, laying out a case for a better transportation and industrial fuel:
hydrogen.

Hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe, is a science teachers

dream. Burn

hydrogen and you get water and ZERO pollution. I was teaching science at The
Francis Parker

School in Linda Vista, CA. Parker, founded in 1912, is private, coeducational, and
college

preparatory, with over one hundred teachers stretching the minds of 1240 K-12
students from

diverse backgrounds.

The only immediate response to my letters was a thoughtful, lengthy reply from
Christie
Whitman. She liked hydrogen, the zero emissions fuel, but said the interest and
efforts of

private citizens are most important to the functioning of government and she
appreciated me

taking the time to express my views.

Then, in January, 2002, Spencer Abrams announced at the Detroit Automobile Show
that

henceforth hydrogen would be the fuel of the future for the United States. Naturally,
I do take

full credit for this auspicious shift in national energy policy!

Hydrogen

All the fossil fuel that existed before we started burning it over the last 150 years
could fit into a

cube about 4.1 miles on an edge.Ev ery day for the next five billion years (give or
take a billion

years) the Earth will receive an amount of solar energy equal to the energy in the
fossil fuel

cube (Hydrogen Today, Vol. 18 No. 1). Why not use this solar energy for
transportation and

stop burning carbon?

Hydrogens cost for the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline in 2001 was, by
my

calculations, about $9.00. I worked with a chemistry professor at the University of

California,

San Diego, to arrive at this figure. We assumed electrolysis of water by electricity to

make

hydrogen. The cost of a gallon of regular gasoline in the U. S. at the time was about
$2.50 a

gallon. Who in his right mind would think hydrogen would replace anything? Well,
Spencer

Abrahams and Bud Suiter did, for two.

In 2001, a gallon of gasoline in Japan or Western Europe was nearly $7.00/gallon, a
closer horse

race with hydrogen. Given that all oil used by the U.S., Europe and Japan comes
from the same

places and costs the same amount at the wellhead, what does this tell you about
the effect of politics on

energy pricing and consumption? More on the subject of the government effect on
fuel policy is

covered below.

Hydrogen is made today mainly for industrial use from natural gas and costs about
$5 to $10

per kilogram, more than double an equivalent amount of gasoline. But hydrogen
fuel-cell cars

also have at least double the energy efficiency of todays spark ignition gasoline
powered cars

(overall energy efficiency of 70% vs. 35%), which helps offset the fuel price
difference.

Today the 2010 Honda Clarity FCX fuel cell car averages 60 miles per kilogram of
hydrogen. But

the Japanese Energy Department estimates future prices for hydrogen will fall to $2
to $3 a

kilogram, Toyota said on August 6, 2010, as reported by Bloomberg News Service.

Today, a gallon of gasoline costs $3. A spark ignition gasoline powered car would
need to get

90 mpg to match the energy cost performance of the Honda FCX with hydrogen
at$2/kilogram.

Now hydrogen as a car fuel is starting to get interesting!

Honda 2010 FCX Hydrogen-Oxygen Fuel Cell Car  on the roads of southern
California

Now in 2010, I would argue that hydrogen can be produced at home for free. If Im
right, why

is there not a stampede to using hydrogen to power our transportation and

industrial furnaces?
Bear with me on this idea, because I think youll agree this is an intriguing concept
with a

future.

Government Contributions

Before getting to free hydrogen, though, lets ask what the U. S. government is now
doing

about making hydrogen the fuel of the future, eight years after Spencer Abrahams

announcement.

Our tax dollars have been spent to make the hydrogen policy come true, eventually,
but of

course we as a nation continue to maintain the status quo on coal, oil and nuclear
energy,

because those entrenched energy sources power the economy today, make wealth
for

investors, create many, many jobs, and validate past policy makers decisions.

Stopping the use of these antiquated energy sources is hard to do, much like trying
to stop

celebrating Italian Christopher Columbus discovering America. We know many

others had

visited and discovered America long before Columbus fabled voyages; the
Portuguese, native

Americans, and the Vikings lead by Eric the Red to name a few. After all, Columbus
is in all our

history books! We just cant bring ourselves to change history books or national
holidays

celebrating these non-achievements.

By 2008, the U.S. government had contributed one billion dollars to making
hydrogen the fuel

of the future. Now the government is scrapping that investment.

In May 2009, the Obama Administration announced that it will "cut off funds" for the
development of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, since other vehicle technologies will
lead to quicker

reduction in vehicle emissions with a shorter development time. The U.S. Secretary
of Energy,

Dr. Steven Chu, explained that hydrogen vehicles "will not be practical over the
next 10 to 20

years", and also mentioned the challenges involved in the development of the
required

infrastructure to distribute hydrogen fuel. Nevertheless, the U.S. government will

continue to

fund research related to stationary fuel cells. The National Hydrogen Association
and the U.S.

Fuel Cell Council criticized this decision arguing that "...the cuts proposed in the
DOE hydrogen

and fuel cell program threaten to disrupt commercialization of a family of

technologies that are

showing exceptional promise and beginning to gain market traction."

The history of government meddling in the outcome of which fuel is favored is

interesting. As

noted above, and more by accident than design, in 1862, Congress passed the
Internal Revenue

Act to fund the Civil War. Alcohol was taxed disproportionately to oil ($2.00/gallon
vs.

$.10/gallon), resulting in the rapid growth of oil as a fuel since it was more economic
than

alcohol. Two dollars was a lot of money in 1862. The alcohol tax was not changed
until 1906.

By then oil was dominant as a transportation fuel.

Government regulation of fuels, emissions, and automobile mileage has been

extensive since

the mid-1950s, and I would argue has been beneficial to the environment and to the
improved
technology and efficiency of transportation vehicles. Such regulation has certainly
not been

limited to the U. S., and a comparison with Californias efforts is useful.

Public Policy in U. S.

yAir Pollution Control Act of 1955  Feds get involved, research starts

y Clean Air Acts of 1963 and 1967  national program, enforcement, research

y Clean Air Act of 1970  Established air quality standards, control of motor vehicle

emissions, mileage targets

yClean Air Acts of 1977 & 1990  More enforcement and added acid rain and ozone

protection

yClean Air Rules 2004  Cap and Trade added, control of mercury, diesel emissions

y Tax incentives for hybrids placed in service after 12/31/05 and purchased on or
before

12/31/10, up to $4,000. The Ford Fusion hybrid, for example, earned $3,400.

yTax incentives for electric vehicles purchased in 2009 were eligible for a federal
income

tax credit of up to $7,500. The amount will vary based on the capacity of the
battery

used to power the vehicle. The Tesla roadster qualified for the full $7,500. This tax

incentive is in effect now and into the future with variations and reductions.

y American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

y $400 million allocated for electric vehicle research

y $2 billion allocated for advanced battery systems research and vehicle parts

y$3 billion allocated for more fuel efficient Federal fleet by 9/30/11

yFuel cell motor vehicle tax credit: up to $8K/each (this is the only incentive left

for fuel cell vehicles!)

y Alternate fuel tax credit: $.50/gal

Public Policy in England

y Clean Air Act of 1956

yReaction to Great Smog of 1952 in London which resulted in many deaths

y New legislation April 2009 in Britain to jump start electric car sales starting in
2011: a

5000 Pound Sterling voucher will be paid to purchasers of electric vehicles (about
the

same as the U. S. incentive)

y England spending 250 million Pounds for cleaner transport, including electric

charging stations for these cars

y Now 120 car charging stations are in place in England

Public Policy in California

y California Air Resources Board (CARB)  California is the only state that can set

standards with Federal waiver, standards which are usually more challenging than

Federal standards

y 13 other states follow California

y Assembly Bill 1493 mandates maximum reduction of CO2 for major car
companies:

requires 42.5 MPG average for cars sold in state by 2020

ySB 1 adopted January 2006 gives a 20% cash incentive for installing solar panels

yAB 811  Berkeley Plan allows financing for solar panels to be added to property
tax

base (part of the free hydrogen strategy noted below)

yApril 24, 2009 CARB votes to replace corn based ethanol and fossil fuels  80%
carbon

reduction mandated by 2050

y Result: requires 52 MPG average for cars sold in state by 2030

Who agrees withthis new government push to electric vehicles?

GM and Honda have stated they have more faith in hydrogen powered cars in the
long run than
electric cars, but the Obama administration has been adding to electric vehicle
research while

cutting back on hydrogen vehicle research. Battery research has been awarded
$1.4 billion in

2009 by the Department of Energy. Contrast that with $1.0 billion spent on
hydrogen research

over the last eight years.

Fuel-cell cars will become necessary, said Takashi Moriya, head of Tokyo-based
Hondas

group developing the technology. Were positioning it as the ultimate zero-

emission car.

Just a few years ago, in 1999, the U.S. government took the opposite tack and cut
back on

electric vehicle research. GM was forced to scrap its electric vehicle program,
known as the EV-

1. Now that the government owns GM, this government change does not bode well
for tax

payers, or for GMs four hundred hydrogen car engineers.

California Air Resources Board, Department of Energy, and Department of

Transportation

studies reported in September, 2010 show that variations of spark ignition, diesel,
and hybrid

electric, partial hybrid electric and full electric vehicles are now forecast to be the
vehicles of

choice for the 2017-2025 period. Fuel cell vehicles are excluded. This provides the
basis for

government funding and rule making for emissions and fuel consumption for
vehicles delivered

during that timeframe.

But lets look closer at electric cars. If you use an all electric car 80-150 miles a
day, you must
recharge batteries in your garage every night. Then you must replace 600+ lbs of
very

expensive lithium-ion batteries every eight years as they wear out.

Lets suppose you are driving to a meeting, but cant get there for lack of charge.
Now you

must find a public charging station, harder than finding a gasoline station. When
you find it,

the best case with high speed chargers is for battery recharging to take hours, not
minutes as it

does to refill a gasoline tank. To avoid that charging time, one enterprising Israeli
company in a

venture with Nissan is offering to exchange your 600+ lb battery pack for a charged
one.

Imagine the mechanic forgetting to secure the electrical or mechanical connections

every time

you have to exchange? Guess how much time it will take in the recharging station
to do the

exchange.

This electric vehicle fixation is an inelegant transportation solution at best and begs
the

question of government rationality. Fortunately, many government funded studies

are

underway now to see what consumers will do about charging their vehicles at public
charging

stations in the 2010-2013 period. The answers may cause a reversal of government
plans for

future vehicle funding by 2013. Remember: recharging a hydrogen fuel cell car
takes just

minutes.

Market Response to theGovernmentPressures

A quick snapshot of reactions in the automotive marketplace to government

standards, funding
and regulation tells the story: go where the money is!

yTesla announces all electric sedan due in 2011

0-60 5.6 sec, 130 MPH, 160 mile range

Tesla sports car available now

NASCAR uses unleaded fuel since 2007 for all races

American Le Mans racing series now uses E10 racing fuel, meaning 10% ethanol,
90%

gasoline

Proton HOGEN hydrogen generation systems available today for service stations,
home

use

yFraser-NashNamir: hybrid-electric car, all carbon fiber, 0-62 MPH in 3.5 sec, 187
MPH

top speed, Giugiaro design, 2009

y ACP r o pu ls io n, San Dimas, CA: Builds drive trains for Tesla and Mini E electric
vehicles

yPhoenix Motorcars, Phoenix, AZ: Converting new Korean trucks and SUVs to
electric

drive

yHiPerformanceGreen Cars, Ontario, CA: Installing Alternating Current (AC)

propulsion

drive trains in Chinese two-seater vehicles

yHeliocentris: Fuel cell stacks and H2 generators offered over a wide range of

performance

yBallard Automotive Fuel Cell Division partnered with Daimlera ndFord1Q2008

fuel
cell vehicles are coming, but not until20 20  Automotive Fuel Cell Company,
AFCC,

formed

yAll major car manufacturers now sell hybrids, will be selling electric vehicless h ort
ly

yDaimler has sixty fuel cell buses on the roads of Germany

Most major car manufacturers have fuel cell test vehicles on the road today

Source: Road and Track, June 2009

What is the attraction of electric vehicles?

For performance enthusiasts, electric vehicles can be rocket sleds. The electric
motor at each

wheel (in some designs) generates maximum torque at zero RPM. So zero to sixty
miles per

hour acceleration rates are fast (definitely sub-four seconds for Teslas and Fraser-
Nash Namirs).

Jaguar has just announced the C-X75 concept car with such an electric vehicle
design plus a

hybrid charging feature that uses two small gas turbines for recharging the
batteries to extend

the electric vehicle range from 68 miles to 560 miles. The motors generate 780 BHP
and 1,187
lb-ft of torque and propel the car to 205 MPH. This is not a likely production vehicle,
but it is

easy on the eye (below), and some of its features could be in production on other
models soon.
Not only do these high end electric vehicles go fast, but the new exterior designs of
electric

sports cars are state of the art and are very attractive. The Chevy Volt coming onto
market now

looks like a standard sedan but does not use the powerful motors and batteries of
the latest

electric sports cars, in order to keep the cost down.

Jaguar C-X75 Concept Car Photo, 2010

The performance of high end electric vehicles is best demonstrated by looking at

the power and

torque curves for the new Tesla roadster. Note that maximum torque is generated
at zero RPM

and that the power goes right on up to 13,000 RPM. That is a range far beyond what
most

spark ignition or diesel engines can achieve.

Tesla Torque and Power Curves from Tesla Website

Alcohol andNaturalGas

We cant talk about fuels of the future without talking about fuels from the past.
Ethanol, an

alcohol derived from renewable biomass such as corn or sugar cane, is now being
burned as

fuel in cars. As noted above, California has just excluded ethanol derived from corn
as a future

fuel, at least for now  possibly because of competition with food corn pushing food
corn prices

up, and the high energy cost to produce and deliver a gallon of ethanol from corn.

Ethanol has become part of the collective global consciousness and may even be
part of your

present tank of gasoline, from 10% to 100% of each tank full. Depending on your
disposition,

this may be better described as a thankful fuel rather than a tank full of fuel, since
ethanol

contains a lot less carbon than gasoline, and therefore emits a lot less carbon
dioxide per gallon

burned. Ethanol, C2H3OH, has two carbons per molecule burned, as compared with
octane,

C8H16, one component of gasoline, which has eight carbons per molecule burned.
This is one

reason why proponents of natural gas, CH4, are happy about natural gas as the fuel
of the future

(compressed natural gas is used in some San Diego buses): big reductions in carbon
dioxide!

Acid rain and climate change are reduced! Eureka!

Summarizing the carbon impact of alternative fuels:

yMethanol

CH3OH
yEthanol

C2H5OH

yGasoline

C7H16 Plus C8H18 mix, C8 is octane, but mix ranges from C6H14 to

C12H26 plus other compounds

yBy-products of combustion: CO2 and H2O, plus CO, S2O, N2O..

And .H YDROGEN

H2

No carbon! By product of combustion is H2O only in a fuel cell, but you get some
nasty

nitrogen compounds if you use hydrogen in an internal combustion engine

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-04/987004809.Ch.r.html

As described above, alcohol would be an even bigger part of the transportation fuel
industry

today if it werent for a political twist of fate in 1862. In 1859, Drake struck oil in
western

Pennsylvania, leading to a new fuel, kerosene, for lamps and lanterns. Acting to
fund the

Unions efforts in the Civil War, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1862 and a
$2.00/gallon

tax on alcohol. What was the tax on kerosene? Just $.10/gallon. This tax differential
was not

changed until Teddy Roosevelt withdrew the alcohol tax in 1906, by which time oil
was

established as the fuel of choice, subsidized for over forty years. As late as the early
1920s,

auto industry executives including Henry Ford still thought alcohol might still be a
better fuel

choice, due to alcohols inherent anti-knock advantage.

Then in 1924 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. invented the gasoline additive
tetraethyl lead and

gasoline immediately erased alcohols main advantage as an automotive fuel. Of

course,

tetraethyl lead was later banned by the Environmental Protection Agency as

dangerous to

human health and is no longer a component of U.S. fuels.

Road Block

The last hurdle in the way of using hydrogen for transportation is the cost of
hydrogen/oxygen

fuel cells. Ballard Power Systems of Vancouver, Canada, with revenues of $27.4
million for the
first six months of 2010, has licensed transportation fuel cells to Ford and Daimler in
a 2008

joint venture, but the cost of a good fuel cell stack today is still high. The Honda FRX
and other

fuel cell cars running on the roads today are leased to owners because purchase
prices would

be too high. And Honda would not lease me one last year. The dealer said that if I
really

wanted one I should call Jamie Lee Curtis in Hollywood who might sub-lease her FRX
Clarity to

me if I asked the right way.

The good news is that the price of a fuel cell stack has dropped by 50% over the last
five years.

The bad news is that they still cost too much. When Toyota made clear this spring
its aim to

release a hydrogen-powered fuel cell auto to the public in 2015 for $50,000, you
can see why

there is need for improvement. Although to be honest, in 2010 dollars, that is just
$39,185,

assuming 5%/year inflation. The Toyota fuel cell car is not expensive in todays
range of

automotive prices.

Further cost improvement on fuel cell designs looks promising. For example, recent
research at

Brookhaven National Laboratory could lead to the replacement of platinum by a

gold-palladium

coating which may be less susceptible to poisoning and thereby improve fuel cell
lifetime

considerably. Another method would use iron and sulfur instead of platinum. This is
possible

through an intermediate conversion by bacteria. This would lower the cost of a fuel
cell
substantially, as the platinum in a regular fuel cell costs around $1,500, and the
same amount

of iron costs $1.50. The concept is being developed by a coalition of the John Innes
Centre and

the University of Milan-Bicocca. (Wikipedia)

Getting the cost out

Until recently, building a fuel cell sufficiently powerful to run a car was costly - even
more than

a vehicle powered by electrochemical batteries or a hybrid drive. To attain the

power levels of a

standard spark ignition internal combustion engine in a midsize sedan, a fuel cell
needs to

produce from 60 to 90 kW. When NASA first started using fuel-cell technology in
space in the

late 1960s, a hydrogen fuel cell cost about $500,000 per kW. Today that price has
dropped to

around $500 per kW - but that means that a fuel-cell engine still costs about
$25,000, which is

around seven times the price of a typical spark ignition engine which runs about
$3,500.

Working for several years with specialists from Ford and Daimler (Mercedes),
Ballard

researchers studied the automotive industry's needs for low-cost, high-volume fuel-
cell stack

manufacturing and specifically designed the Mark 900 unit to accommodate them.
"The key to

developing an efficient supply chain," Ballard explained then, "is to choose low-cost,
readily

available materials and cheap, scalable, automated manufacturing processes. We

did an actual
commercial plant study for the annual production of 300,000 vehicle equivalents,
considering

the building, logistics, and other crucial details. Using a standard rule of thumb for
value

allocation in fuel-cell systems of 40% for the stack, 40% for the system components,
and 20%

for the electric drive and transmission, we determined that fuel-cell power plants
could be sold

at around $50-60 per kW, perhaps less as volumes increase. (Automotive

Engineering

International Online, 2010).

The likelihood is that fuel cells will continue to drop in cost and by 2025 should be
competitive

with other propulsion systems. This is especially noteworthy because the fuel cells
have twice

the energy efficiency of a spark ignition/gasoline engine.

In the meantime, as of July 2007, California had 179 fuel cell vehicles andtwen ty f
iv ehyd r o g en

refueling stations in operation with plans in the works for ten more stations (Wiki-
Pedia).

California has one in five vehicle registrations in the U. S., and an aggressive
California Air

Resources Board pushing the Federal government on emissions, so is a U.S. leader

in alternate
fuel vehicles and support systems.

Hydrogen isFree!

Take this statement with a grain of salt, but there is a grain of truth in what is
coming next.

Lets say you have a solar electric home. You generate more electricity than you
use during the

day and your meter runs backward. You have excess capacity on your system. How
about

installing an electrolysis unit for making hydrogen in your garage using this free
electricity? The

cost of the solar electric system is already in place on your roof. Youre just adding
a new

application. You will need a compressor, not free, to bring your hydrogen gas up to
10,000

pounds per square inch, and a small 316L stainless steel or metal hydride storage
tank for

hydrogen, also not free, but both are readily available. Now with a proper hose, you
can refill

your hydrogen powered car in a few minutes in your own garage and never have to
visit a

service station again.

The idea for this in-house solution came from Amory Lovins research at the Rocky
Mountain

Institute, a widely acclaimed think tank. Lovins proposed years ago to make
hydrogen in

existing gas stations  from solar power  and eliminate the need for pipelines or
tankers to

transport hydrogen. Back then it seemed that pipelines would be a good idea to this
writer,

especially when you considered DOEs plans to put a nuclear reactor in Idaho, the
sole purpose
of which was to produce hydrogen. Pipelines made sense to get the hydrogen to
California

where one in five U.S. cars operate.

But a $100+ billion new pipeline system for shipping hydrogen around the country
now makes

no sense at all if you can make hydrogen locally in your own garage, or down the
street at the

service station, using the energy of the sun. Proton Energy Systems, Inc. and
Heliocentris

Energy Systems, Inc., among others, sell these hydrogen making and storing
systems today.

Free hydrogen: better than eureka! And hydrogen is green, renewable and local.

Bud Suiter

Science Teacher

The Francis Parker School, Linda Vista, CA

y Rocky Mountain Institutew w w . rm i. o rg /

y Amory Lovins

www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1894410_1893209_1893457,
00

.html

y Ballard FormsAutomotive Partnership

www.autobloggreen.com/2007/11/08/breaking-daimler-and-ford-join-forces-with-
afcc-

to-develop-auto/

y Ballard Power Systemswww.ballard.com /

yTesla Motorsh t t p ://w w w . t esla m o to rs. c o m /

Fuel of the Future 10-2-10

Download this Document for FreePrintMobileCollectionsReport Document

Report this document?

Please tell us reason(s) for reporting this document

Top of Form

7eb6e297a69774

doc

Spam or junk

Porn adult content

Hateful or offensive

If you are the copyright owner of this document and want to report it, please follow
these directions to submit a copyright infringement notice.

Report Cancel

Bottom of Form

This is a private document.

Info and Rating

Reads:

61

Uploaded:

10/31/2010

Category:

Research>Business & Economics

Rated:

0 5 false false 0
There is a clean fuel, hydrogen, that burns to form water vapor and makes
electricity in a fuel cell that can be used to turn electric motors. The... (More) There
is a clean fuel, hydrogen, that burns to form water vapor and makes electricity in a
fuel cell that can be used to turn electric motors. The first car to be propelled by a
hydrogen fuel cell was in 1998, just twelve years ago.

The U. S. Federal government has announced recently that they are abandoning
hydrogen automotive research after eight years and one billion dollars. Instead,
Federal funding is backing battery powered vehicles as a quicker solution to clean
air and less dependency on fossil fuels. Why is that? What's the deal with electric
cars? The story ends with a longer term promise than electric cars and 'free' fuel in
the future. (Less)

hydrogen

ethanol

fuel cell

carbon dioxide

Electric Vehicle

Solar Energy

(more tags)

hydrogen

ethanol

fuel cell

carbon dioxide

Electric Vehicle

Solar Energy

fossil fuels

obama administration

government policy

government regulations

(fewer)

Bud Suiter
Ads by Google

Share & Embed

Related Documents

PreviousNext

p.

p.
p.

p.

p.

p.
p.

p.

p.

p.
p.

p.

p.

p.
 p.

More from this user

PreviousNext

14 p.

Add a Comment

Top of Form

7eb6e297a69774
Submit

Characters: 400

document_comme

4gen

Bottom of Form