Rep. John Larson appointed to new Global Warming Committee

No legislative jurisdiction? (0.00 / 0)

Sounds like lip service to me--along the same vein of non-binding resolutions. To be effective in fixing the great damage GWB's WH has done with this country, the Democratic Congress need to pass meaningful legislation with teeth (e.g. restore habeas corpus, reduce CO2 emmissions, limit funding for any war escalation).

The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice. --Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

by: connecticutyankee @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 15:23:51 PM UTC

testimony (0.00 / 0)

They'll be able to get people in and under oath, which is a valuable service. The reason it's dangerous to Dingell is because such a committee breaks up the gentlemen's agreement that certain realities not be entered into the public record, and testimony from this committee can put real pressure on his committee to act.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:33:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Larson (0.00 / 0)

I'm sure he will find some way to push Fuel Cells within this process.

Problem with the technology is it just is cost prohibitive.

---

by: Weicker Liker @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:23:44 PM UTC

like ethanol (0.00 / 0)

only it's not pork barrel politics for the midwest, but for CT.

–7.25 / –7.28 | http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tw...

---

by: mattw @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:35:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Goal Is to Reduce Costs (0.00 / 0)

Fuel Cell Benefits

Fuel cells are the cleanest and most efficient technologies for generating electricity from fossil fuels. For systems designed to consume hydrogen directly, the only products are electricity, water and heat.

When a fuel cell consumes natural gas or other hydrocarbons, it produces some carbon dioxide, though much less than burned fuel. Advanced fuel cells using natural gas, for example, could potentially reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 60 percent compared to a conventional coal plant and by 25 percent compared to modern natural gas plants. Moreover, the carbon dioxide is emitted in concentrated form which makes its capture and storage, or sequestration, much easier.

SOFCs are being designed that can operate on coal gas, natural gas, bio-fuels, diesel fuel and hydrogen.  This fuel flexibility will facilitate deployment into the marketplace while taking advantage of existing fuel distribution infrastructures.  By developing fuel cells to operate cost effectively on various fuels, SECA is building a bridge to the hydrogen economy for fuel cells. 

Fuel cells are so clean that, in the U.S., over half of the states have financial incentives to support their installation. In fact, the South Coast Air Quality Management District in southern California and regulatory authorities in both Massachusetts and Connecticut have exempted fuel cells from air quality permitting requirements. Some  states have portfolio standards or set asides for fuel cells. Additionally, there are major fuel cell programs in New York (NYSERDA), Connecticut (Connecticut Clean Energy Fund), Ohio (Ohio Development Department), and California (California Energy Commission).  Certain states have favorable policies that improve the economics of fuel cell projects. For example, some states have net metering, and some have net metering for fuel cells which obligates utilities to deduct any excess power produced by fuel cells from the customer's bill.

Fuel cells are also inherently modular. They can be scaled up by duplication of cells and stacks from a few watts for certain appliances to multiple megawatt power stations that can light a community.

Cost - the Major Hurdle

So why aren't fuel cells being installed everywhere there is a need for more power?

The primary reason is cost. Fuel cells developed for the space program in the 1960s and 1970s were extremely expensive ($600,000/kW) and impractical for terrestrial power applications. During the past three decades, significant efforts have been made to develop more practical and affordable designs for stationary power applications. But progress has been slow. Today, the most widely deployed fuel cells cost about $4,500 per kilowatt; by contrast, a diesel generator costs $800 to $1,500 per kilowatt, and a natural gas turbine can be $400 per kilowatt or even less.

The SECA Program (www.seca.doe.gov) will bring about dramatic reductions in fuel cell costs, cutting costs to as low as $400 per kilowatt by the end of this decade, which would make fuel cells competitive for virtually every type of power application. The SECA initiative is developing a modular, all-solid-state fuel cell that could be mass-produced for different uses much the way electronic components are manufactured and sold today.

Read more here.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:37:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's More On CT and Fuel Cells (0.00 / 0)

DANBURY, Conn.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 6, 2006-- FuelCell Energy, Inc. (NasdaqNM:FCEL), a leading manufacturer of ultra-clean electric power generation plants for commercial, industrial, and government customers, today announced development of a cost-efficient system to separate pure hydrogen from a gas mixture that then can be sold as fuel for hydrogen vehicles or industrial uses. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has awarded FuelCell Energy $1.36 Million to advance this Electrochemical Hydrogen Separator (EHS) project for use with the company's Direct FuelCell(R) (DFC(R)) power plants.

Unlike other means of separating hydrogen, which rely on compression, FuelCell Energy's proprietary EHS technology has no moving parts. As a result, it is anticipated to be significantly more reliable and efficient than conventional methods. EHS is expected to save up to one-half of the energy required when compared to conventional compression based-methods of hydrogen separation.

A subscale prototype EHS unit developed by FuelCell Energy is currently operating at the University of Connecticut Global Fuel Cell Center. This test was made possible through a $600,000 grant provided by the Connecticut Clean Energy Fund under its operational demonstration program. The subscale EHS system currently produces 1200 liters per hour of pure hydrogen. With the DoD award, the unit will be scaled up by a factor of 25 and will operate in conjunction with a sub-megawatt DFC power plant in Danbury for testing.

Read more here.

---

by: Jon Kantrowitz @ Wed Mar 14, 2007 at 16:40:01 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What Jon Said! (0.00 / 0)

And BTW...

Problem with [fuel cell] technology is it just is cost prohibitive.

Every technology is cost-prohibitive when it's new; that's why we have engineers... and, when the technology serves a public good, government-supported R&D.

And the old Green saw about how fuel cells are bad for the environment because hydrogen is made from hydrocarbons is bogus: Hydrogen will be made from water, as long as there's sufficient electricity. The key here is to pair fuel cells with hydrogen generation powered by renewable electricity sources (e.g., solar, wind, etc.).

Fuel cells are essentially another form of battery technology; we will have them powering our electric cars... unless solid-state battery technology gets even better even faster.

---

by: dauphinb @ Thu Mar 15, 2007 at 04:30:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]