California Receives Majority Of $7M US Energy Department Hydrogen Funding

People forget about the hidden social choices that we make because we think our paths are irreversible. In the last 12 years, we've spent $4 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That $4 trillion would have paid for a lot of "pie in the sky" trans formative projects in the US. It would have been easy with a fraction of that money, over that time, to convert our over-the-road truck fleet to natural gas. Harder projects, like solar roads and massive solar hydrogen generation would have been within our grasp. We would have had money to design and build thorium nuclear reactors in areas without solar, wind and geothermal resources. As the wars wind down we still subsidize the oil, gas and (unbelievably) the coal industries. We subsidize private car ownership through insufficient fuel taxes.

I'm not a big supporter of incentivized and subsidisied schemes by the government. If hydrogen requires this even this small level of support then it's a waste of resources. There are obviously better options out there. Or, is this just a token effort to appease some lobbyist group? Hydrogen is an expensive and polluting fuel to manufacture, when and if we can produce it economically, it then should be considered. There are other instruments that can be used to make the US more efficient in the use of energy. The first one is the US (and many other countries) must realize there is a cost with using any form of energy. It will impact something somewhere. If Californian's want a cleaner environment, then increase the tax on fossil fuels. This would encourage the use of smaller vehicles. Believe it or not these are readily available and use cheap existing technology.

@hdc So? Does California have to have cheaper fuel? Your view of equal fuel prices is a socialist outlook. California needs money to exist. This $7 million is better spent fixing a blackspot to reduce accidents. Each road death costs the US and California millions of dollars. So what if you drive smaller and more efficient vehicles in California. But you need to remove many of the restrictive controls on the US auto industry and energy industry for this to occur. Driving large vehicles isn't a god given right. Driving a small vehicle, as in Europe isn't a god given right. Cheap energy isn't a god given right. Just because you want cheap energy doesn't mean it is a given, even to the point where poor government policy/regulatory controls/socialist subsidies are put into place. There are alternatives to the current regime of US controls and regulations to reduce fuel/energy usage in the US. All more efficient. I had this debate the other day on PUTC. The US auto/energy industry regulatory controls are designed by unions, corporation and government. Not the people. Your auto industry is an example of socialist controls. If you want to drive a vehicle that consumes energy, pay for it. Which makes my beliefs the same as yours. Except you believe that fuel should be cheap and subsidised because that is what you want. You appear to believe in socialism when you benefit. My mother is similar and she's an avid Fox and Friends fan. To her everyone on welfare are the issue, not the fact that the average un/semi-skilled US worker earns peanuts. The cost of energy influences what you drive. Look at us in Australia and Canada. We have a similar car culture to the US. But the cost of energy influences what we drive. This isn't subsidised by the taxpayer in Australia. It is influenced by better and more logical regulatory controls. We can buy and drive what we want, with less influence by regulations. That's why per capita Australia has the highest ownership of performance cars globally. We call this in Australia freedom. In the US, the vehicle you buy, is more regulated and controlled to the point where the US is becoming the odd one out globally. Being the odd one out will cost the US consumer money. If you like a socialist energy and auto market, so be it. The US market would be similar to what I envisage the Chinese to eventually have. We will give you enough choice, but the choice is what we want as a government, not you as a people. Sounds like something George Washington and Ben Franklin would of have liked to see.

@hdc Here's are some links to highlight what I'm stating. The US subsidises it cars at $3 000 per vehicle, Germany $1 300 per vehicle, Australia $2 000 (used too). Then when you look at he graph in the first link the US also has greater fuel subsidies than the Europeans on average. So, this indicates to me that the US has a more socialised energy and auto manufacturing industries than the EU. I can see why the UAW stooges like Pch101, DiM, Mikey, and the rest want the status quo to remain. Socialism at it's best. I think you'll find the US would pay more for fuel without the massive subsidised energy you guys receive. Dont' forget for a subsidy to exist the money has to come from somewhere. But where? Borrowings? http://www.bbc.com/news/business-27142377 http://theconversation.com/factcheck-do-other-countries-subsidise-their-car-industry-more-than-we-do-16308 This makes a mockery of this wasted money on pointless EV, hybrid and hydrogen sh!t. I do think the people that support this waste of resources should pay the full price for the unviability so they can feel good. Let them as the consumer contribute all the money required to develop these feel good industries. Not the guy making $10ph. I would say most who buy this stuff have a life skills degree in the Arts or are socialist inclined engineers, ie, the socialist elites. Why else would you buy a vehicle that's subsidised by poorer tax payers? These are just feel good products. Like the feeling you get after eating a whole grain sugar encrusted breakfast cereal. The true cost of this stuff is the neglect of better methods to reduce emissions, like the construction of more very needed nuclear reactors or comprehensive natural gas infrastructure to ALL home in the US, not just manufacturer a few feel good products.