A New Common Cause

By Robert Rose

Editor’s Note: This is another in a series of occasional columns intended as a forum for readers. Contributions are welcome. The editor reserves the right to reject suggestions and edit material to fit our format without, of course, changing the author’s basic views. Here, U.S. Fuel Council president Robert Rose takes a look at what lies ahead this year - the good, the not so good, and the unknown.

I have called for a New Partnership among the fuel cell and hydrogen industries, governments around the world and other interests who share the view that a hydrogen economy is the ultimate sustainable energy strategy.

I have suggested that our industry pursue a much more ambitious program than ever before – perhaps $60 billion in the US and three to four times that worldwide – over the next 15 years, with a dedicated revenue stream to pay for it. Getting there will not be easy. Standing in the way of success are cost, at least perceived cost, market impatience and entrenched opponents. We have allies and the list is growing. But we face opposition from many in the advanced energy community who should be allies. If we do not reach out to these interests, it will be a challenge to achieve any real growth in the federal-private partnership on hydrogen and fuel cells.

First, the good news. The Bush Administration’s commitment will remain strong despite a challenging revenue environment, a new Secretary of Energy, and an overall focus on conventional fuels. There is also strong support from Democrats, notably in the Senate, where Sens. Dorgan, Clinton, Harkin, and others are working with their Republican colleagues on a large and significant legislative package that addresses both fuel cells and hydrogen.

Internationally, interest, planning and financial commitments are growing. The International partnership for a Hydrogen Economy is the most organized manifestation of this interest, with events planned into 2006.

The emerging international understanding of the cost of the transition is also a hopeful sign. The International Energy Agency added up estimates of the global cost of a hydrogen transition over the next 30 years and came up with $1 to $5 trillion. While it sounds like a lot, it is only about one third of one percent of global national product. This is very modest compared to the cost of comparable transitions from canals to rail and rail to motor car, which IEA estimates cost five to 10 percent of global product.

If it happens, the wave of fuel cell products replacing batteries that has been announced for 2005 and 2006 will also help, bringing fuel cells and hydrogen literally into the hands of thousands of opinion leaders. Their physical reality, and their performance, one hopes, will be a substantial boost to education efforts aimed at code officials, politicians and the public.

Now, the bad news. Neither Mr. Bush nor Congress has yet formally recognized the scope of our endeavor. In fact, it is fair to say that our leaders in Washington have yet to embrace in any form an energy policy that will really respond to the imperatives of energy supply and global warming. It is little comfort that we are not alone.

It is possible that President Bush will propose a cut overall in spending for advanced energy technologies in FY 2006, or at best propose level funding. In this scenario, too many of our natural allies in the renewable and advanced energy community will see hydrogen not as a partner but as a threat. Obviously, the best strategy is banding together to try to increase the government’s commitment. But many will (and some already have) pursue “zero sum” strategies that are inherently negative and turn natural allies into opponents. We already are seeing more skepticism expressed in the halls of Congress: in politics, negatives tend to stick.

Politics, it is said, is the art of the possible. It will be our job to help shape the public’s interest in hydrogen to influence what is possible in Washington and other world capitals.

We need to start with those who support renewable energy. If we cannot find common cause with this community, we will be victimized by more articles like the unfortunate piece in the current issue of Popular Science (“Hydrogen’s Bomb”). These articles do real damage. We ignore them at our peril. The challenges of hydrogen, including the cost of the fuel and infrastructure, safety and consumer acceptance, need to be discussed and understood. But we need to be leading this discussion, not our opponents.

Yet here, too, there are hopeful signs. The bio-fuels industry has expressed renewed interest in fuel cells. Hybrid wind-hydrogen and solar-hydrogen systems are operating, and more are planned at a much larger scale.

These industries will prove to be powerful allies, if we can find a common agenda.

The New Partnership I spoke of must have room for the renewable energy community, for other advanced energy interests, for customers, for social activists and environmentalists. It will be good politics. And the stakes - economic, environmental, geopolitical - demand nothing less.