House Resources Chairman calls alternative fuel a bad word

[_testify_]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/21/energy.bill.pambo/index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Shortly before the House began debate Wednesday on an energy bill aimed primarily at making the country less dependent on overseas oil, a House committee chairman involved in the legislation bluntly dismissed a key provision to boost the use of hydrogen fuels.

House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-California, a key proponent of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, whispered, "This is bulls--t," to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt as the two men stood listening to Rep. John Doolittle, R-California, talk about the benefits of hydrogen fuel at a crowded Capitol Hill news conference.

The remark, which was meant to be private, was overheard by a CNN reporter standing next to Blunt.

----------------------------------

[htuttle]

1. "Oh, is this thing on?"

<tap, tap tap>

[meganmonkey]

2. You may want to change your thread title to that of the article

as per LBN rules, although I do so like your version!

And the original isn't bad, either. I gues 'disses' is officially a word, huh!

:P

[_testify_]

4. I changed it...

but he *did* say it...personally I'd have more respect if he said it right into a mic...

[Up2Late]

8. No you need to make the subject line the same as the article

"House Resources chairman disses key provision of energy bill" (no quote marks)

or it will get deleted or moved, and you might get tomb stoned too.

If you have extra room, you can add something in (parenthesis) for clarity. The rules are strict in LBN.

[Sinistrous]

3. Pombo may be an ass, but

the energy equations for hydrogen as a fuel, using presen-day technologies, do not support hydrogen as a valid alternative.

[wallwriter]

9. ANd there used to be no polio vaccine, either.

Why is America a can-do country when it comes time to telling the poor to get up off their ass, but everything is impossible when thinking about alternatives to corporate oil.

[DoYouEverWonder]

16. Exactly, all I hear

from all the doomsayers is that there is nothing we can do, when there is so much we can do right now and we will have plenty of oil. Of course, the oil companies don't want us to figure that out either.

[hatrack]

23. Polio vaccines don't violate the laws of thermodynamics

What does the development of a vaccine have to do with the fact that hydrogen is not going to replace oil?

[Kolesar]

10. Nobody has figured out how to transport it or store it onboard

Further, there is no practical way to create hydrogen at any usable rate that would be cost effective. IOW, we are not ever going to run our cars on hydrogen.

[htuttle]

12. I think I know why they like the hydrogen idea so much

An electricity-based fuel future is all but certain (given a scarcity of petroleum fuel). I'm sure nukes will probably be used a lot more -- we're already seeing that, especially where petroleum is already very expensive, though various other means of generating electricity can and will also be used.

However, what about our cars? Detroit (long in league with big oil) could go with regular electric cars, using various battery types (and there's been some advances in battery technology lately, and there's certainly the promise of better batteries in the future). But regular electric cars could fuel up at any source of electricity, even some schmoe's own wind generator. There's too many ways to generate electricity, and it's too easy to do. The big oil companies don't like that. Not one bit. So they probably don't plan on being primarily electrical power producers in the future. It's not their style to deal with competition.

But if the vehicles are built to run on hydrogen, and the vehicle fuel infrastructure is all based around hydrogen, then by golly they can keep their fingers on the 'tap', and make their money the same way they do today -- by having a monopoly centered around our primary means of travel. Hydrogen is not something you can make affordably on a small scale (except on a VERY small, and useless, scale).

They can even transition into it, by starting out by producing hydrogen from petroleum, then eventually by producing using electricity (from their own nukes, no doubt).

I can't think of ANY other reason BushCo would prefer a hydrogen fuel infrastructure for vehicles over a plain electrical one. It doesn't make sense in any other way that I can think of. Ultimately, it's really just a big waste of energy (unless you own the plant making the hydrogen, see?)

[mbperrin]

18. BMW is nobody?

http://www.bmwworld.com/models/750hl.htm

The BMW 750hL, a production ready car demonstrated at Expo 2000, is the culmination of three decades of research on hydrogen powered vehicles. The 750hL is a car powered by sunlight and water.

A hydrogen-powered MINI concept was unveiled at the 2001 Frankfurt Motor Show. It runs solely on hydrogen and shows the potential for a virtually zero emissions vehicle which still offers outstanding performance in an affordable package.

The BMW Clean Energy system involves liquid hydrogen produced from water using solar power. Hydrogen as a motor fuel is the answer to many environmental problems since there are no harmful emissions, no depleting of resources, and no danger to the atmosphere.

Since the 70's, BMW has been researching the future of mobility. The fruit of the research is the new BMW 750hL hydrogen powered vehicle.

(Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, after all.)

[Kolesar]

21. Aluminum is the most abundant element in the Earth's crust

That does not mean you can run a car on aluminum.

[Art_from_Ark]

31. Aluminum doesn't burn

Hydrogen does

[Art_from_Ark]

32. By the way, the most abundant element in the earth's crust is oxygen

followed by silicon. Aluminum comes in a distant third

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/elabund.html

[NickB79]

27. The article leaves many questions unanswered

Like, what is the range before refueling? Hydrogen has a very low energy density, so most hydrogen vehicles have to be refueled every 150 miles or so.

It also doesn't say how long it takes to refuel the vehicle. Refueling with liquified hydrogen at high pressure doesn't sound like a safe practice for quick refueling stops.

It also says that hydrogen is made using solar power to convert water to hydrogen. Unfortunately, if hydrogen does take off under Bush's proposals, he wants to use natural gas or coal as the base material, not water, meaning there would be a LOT of pollution involved. The only way we could maintain our car-centered lifestyle in the US with hydrogen vehicles would be to build new nuclear reactors to convert water to hydrogen, as solar simply doesn't have the efficiency right now to supply enough hydrogen for the millions of cars Americans drive. And we all know how thrilled most people are about building new nuclear reactors.

[renaldo]

29. Hydrogen ain't bullshit

Hydrogen could be produced from wind turbines and water from the wind resources availible in the Great Plains states, and could be distributed through existing natural gas pipelines (modified to prevent hydrogen embrittlement). Most gas appliances could be modified to run on hydrogen as well. Small fuel cells in the home could produce electricity locally and fuel cells in cars could be charged with hydrogen at home. Cars with internal combustion could also run directly on hydrogen. The charge that there is a "net energy loss" is a red herring. There is net energy loss in all processes. Since the energy would be renewable and derived from incoming solar, there is a NET GAIN, as a practical matter. There are losses in charging batteries, losses in tranmission, etc. This doesn't matter as long as our "income is adequate. There are also promising new photosynthetic-like processes that make hydrogen directly from solar. Maybe if we applied the $300 billion that Thief in Chief has wasted on war we could solve these problems.

[Terran]

24. Yes, but the reason you state

is probably not the reason he said that about hydrogen fuels. I daresay he'd say the same of any technology other than oil/coal/nuke.

[tinanator]

26. who cares? Think of all those delicious R&D grants and tax advantages?

And when all is said and done petrochemicals wont even be threatened.
Anything but Electric vehicles, thats just ecoterrorism talk.

[Guaranteed]

5. POMBO!! That son of a bitch.

That guy is a PIECE OF CRAP.

He's going to lose this one, though.

[Up2Late]

6. Another anti-America RePuke in charge in the House

What a JERK! Toyota is less than 5 years away (more like 2) to putting Fuel Cell cars and trucks on the road. Here's a quote from later in the article:

"...In the comments that drew Pombo's whispered comment, Doolittle said the alternative vehicle program would "turbocharge" development of pollution-free hydrogen vehicles in the United States.

"The goal is to have hydrogen vehicles on our roads by 2020," Doolittle said enthusiastically. "We presently have the technology. It's not decades away, it's not five years from now. Hydrogen fuel cells exist now."

Pombo said afterward that despite his dismissive comment he thinks it's important the hydrogen technology gets funded in the bill, which is expected to pass the House Thursday before going to the Senate where it faces an uncertain future...":mad:

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. We sent a man to the moon in less time

and back then we were starting at zero.

Alternatives are the way, whether the oil companies like them or not.

[Wright Patman]

7. No, bullshit would be

more in the category of biomass-based fuels.

What a "waste" this guy is.

[UCLA Dem]

11. yes lets just have endless wars in the middle east instead.

:sarcasm:

[AlCzervik]

13. Richard Pombo is a f*cking whores whore, i'm so glad i don't live

in his district, not that my whore is much better but Pombo takes the cake. He hates things that live!

[gratuitous]

14. I thought Stupidhead himself endorsed hydrogen fuel cars

Wasn't that one of the points he rambled through during his 2003 or 2004 State of the Whatever speech? And now one of his own party members is calling it a bad word! My oh my, what ever will happen? Will Stupidhead stick up for hydrogen as an alternative energy source, or will he meekly submit to Mr. Pombo's well-reasoned and -informed opinion?

[AlCzervik]

15. that was because the Gropenfuher floated that idea and even had a hummer

to hydogen power, thats the only reason Pombo ever said anything about it.

[rodeodance]

19. so, how do we contact him?

[AlCzervik]

20. who pombo?

http://www.house.gov/pombo/

[hatrack]

22. Arnold has never converted any of his cars - all talk, no action

Just like most of the rest of the Pukes.

[AlCzervik]

25. He did for show but then he left in his gas guzzler

http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0410/24/autos-312839.htm

[DrZeeLit]

28. It's all BS until they can figure out how they can make $$$ -- what's in

it for "me," -- campaign funding, dough for trips, line some pockets, under the table... you know the drill.

Then, it will be ---> AWESOME, WONDERFUL, WHY DIDN"T WE DO THIS EARLIER?

They are sooooo transparent.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

30. The ultimate irony

is that everyone would be wealthier if alternative energy came about.

The folks in charge always seem to forget that the 3 biggest booms in the American (and to an extent, global)economy in the 20th Century were directly tied to a technological advancement.

1920s and Ford's automobile.

1950s and the television.

1990s and the Internet/personal computers.

If development in alternative energy sources actually led somewhere, the economy would likely boom, and EVERYONE would be doing well from the top to the bottom -- even the oil men. They've already got the capital and at least a jumpstart on the infrastructure to make the transition.

The only way the oil men truly lose is by trying to thwart the development of alternative energy. Because as WE all know, the wells will run dry eventually, and they will be left with nothing if they haven't tried to diversify into new energy markets.