Did Bush really slash the hydrogen car budget?
Wow, where do I start with this one. I was discussing alternate fuel with a friend the other day and he stated that Bush had slashed the budget for Hydrogen car research. My response was that it was his program anyway, so he was ahead on “tree huggin points”. I was told that he just continued the Clinton hydrogen car plan.
Since I was completely ignorant as to the budgeting and who started the Hydrogen car plans I did some research (please correct me where I’m wrong, as it seems very very difficult to get actual numbers for what the government really spends).
First off from the tone of this article, it appears that the Hydrogen car plan was mostly a Bush effort. Clinton’s effort seemed to be based more around generating much higher fuel economy from gasoline (a worthy goal of 80mpg), and only gave 17 million a year of the plan to Hydrogen fuel cell research. Additionally Clinton’s chief Energy Department official in charge of conservation and alternative energy, Joseph J. Romm, wrote a book called “The Hype about Hydrogen”. So it would appear that officials associated with the Energy Department under Clinton were not very interested in Hydrogen energy.
Bush proposed a 5 year Hydrogen car plan starting in 2003 that would spend 1.2 Billion dollars over 5 years. As far as I can gather the breakdown is as follows:
2003 – 150 Million
2004 – 300 Million
2005 – 320 Million
2006 – 155 Million
2007 – 200 Million (currently proposed)
Which comes up to a little over 1.1 Billion (close enough to 1.2 Billion for round numbers eh). So if the program has a fixed point and is not an ongoing entitlement, the spending would have to be reduced so as to not over-run the budget for the project.
So it would appear to me that the plan is primarily Bush’s and that he spent about what he said he would.
All that said…
I want to know how the government can piss away 1.2 Billion of my tax dollars and I not have a freakin Hydrogen fuel car that I can drive slated for an assembly line somewhere!
May 31st, 2006
You worked for NASA and you can still ask why there is not tangible result from $1.2 billion in research expenditure? I’ll grant you that there were some nifty devices and concepts covered in NASA Magazine, or whatever it was called, when I was on their mailing list, but research is frequently expensive and often has little to show for itself.
Speaking optimistically, the money may have covered enough research to improve understanding of concepts, build a few models for testing same, and creating questions which can only be answered by further research. Practical considerations such as fueling stations and repair facilities were likely pondered, or at least realized as necessary for a hydrogen fueled fleet of cars to succeed petroleum fueled ones.
Speaking cynically, the money repaid favors to large corporations who may have actually used very little of the money to actually further understanding and practicality of concepts underlying hydrogen as a fuel for automobiles.
Pragmatically, a blend of the aforementioned views is what likely resulted from President Bush’s research budget.
Like you, I’d like to have seen something tangible, if only a prototype cell shown powering something. This would have given an indication of potential viabilitiy and shown voters who care about such matters that the government is at least looking at alternatives with more than a cynical eye. Perhaps they were reluctant to spend money publicizing the research. Why could fill pages if one cared to give it consideration. I’m disinclined to make the effort. Have you considered writing the Energy Department to ask if they have any information about research results? They may be more enlightening than you think. I’ve had some good experiences requesting information about government funded research.