Barry Finegold does not favor now, nor has he ever favored, ethanol from corn or clean coal. In his stump speech, Barry acknowledges that in Iowa the most relevant front of environmental innovation is ethanol from corn and in North Dakota it’s clean coal. That only highlights the exciting reality that right here in the 5th District we have to focus on the hydrogen fuel cell industry. We have all the resources we need to make the Merrimack Valley the global leader in hydrogen fuel cells, from the educational resources to the great companies already leading the charge on fuel cell innovation. Barry has a strong record of leadership on alternative energy on Beacon Hill and bold ideas for the future of renewable energy in this country and in the world.
Nairi Tashjian
Communications Director
Finegold for Congress
What does Barry envision as the feedstock for hydrogen generation?
<
p>
Hydrogen may or may not be a energy carrier, but it is not an energy source, per se.
<
p>
Fuel cells, which are very efficient and clean (but currently expensive) are half the question- equally important is what happens upstream (to generate the H2).
I have raised this very question here on BMG in Mr Finegold’s diaries, to no avail.
<
p>
H-cells are is worthless unless there is a clean way of making the fuel they will combust. Although hydrogen is ubiquitous, it must be highly concentrated to be an effective fuel. Concentrating it requires energy. What form of energy (coal? nuclear? wind? windbag?) does Mr Finegold propose we expend to create the hydrogen fuel in the cells he is pushing? Please, convince me that this is not a shell game, and that Mr Finegold isn’t jumping on a bandwagon that relies on cold fusion or a perpetual motion machine. Oh, and spending billions of tax dollars in the process. (nice windfall for the h-cell manufacturers though.)
As we have articulated before, Barry’s plan to help the federal government go green will invest heavily in advancing hydrogen technology. And there are some great companies right here in the 5th district that are working on creating hydrogen from solar and wind sources. Simultaneously, companies in Massachusetts and elsewhere are working to make sure those processes are clean.
<
p>
While we still have work to do on making this technology accessible and affordable for all, we have to look to the future now, because we can’t continue to pay these gas prices and pollute our environment with fossil fuel emissions. The beginning of all technology is never perfect – computers used to take up entire rooms – but without a vision for where we want to go, we cannot move forward and leave fossil fuels in the past.
<
p>
The campaign would be happy to speak with anyone with questions about Barry’s ideas on renewable energy and hydrogen. We can be reached at campaign headquarters at (978) 409-6004.
I have yet to hear Mr. Finegold mention the problem of hydrogen fuel generation until he is challenged. I only hear and see “hydrogen cells”. They are not the same thing. H-cells are a subset technology. His approach does not engender trust.
<
p>
Thank you for the contact number. May I ask, is there any reason why you or Mr Finegold are unwilling to lay out the details here, where everyone can see them? I don’t have a speaker phone.
…BSing us with the latest mantra.
<
p>
Some of us who have some background in science know that hydrogen is a non-starter. The production of hydrogen requires more energy and CO_2 than it is worth, there is no infrastructure for its distribution, and there are no vehicles that can use it.
There are several very troubling limiting factors right now for a hydrogen economy, making fuel cells not ready for mass marketing on federal buildings or anywhere else.
<
p>
One is that production of hydrogen from electrolysis (solar, wind, whatever, it winds up as electricity) appears to be very inefficient. We may well be better off with electric cars with the newer batteries now coming on the market, and batteries in our cellar, right now, than with hydrogen acting as the battery.
<
p>
Does Rep. Finegold realize that hydrogen itself is not the energy source? That it would be, essentially, an energy storage? And as a storage for energy, it is not yet nearly efficient enough to start putting in all federal buildings. If it ever is.
<
p>
The limiting factor for renewable energy, especially decentralized power generation such as solar, is both the efficiency of the method (solar panels are getting there, and there’s some major breakthroughs on the horizon, but current marketable panels are still dinosaurs) and also the trouble about storage.
<
p>
In the end, for cars, trucks, trains, planes, or anyplace that has to have electricity at night, is storage. That’s why for a while, hydrogen seemed like the answer. But without breakthroughs on efficiency of electrolysis, it’s a boondoggle with little result.
<
p>
Iceland is in the process of going all hydrogen. They can do so because they have fewer people, and a hell of a lot of energy to waste – in the form of geothermal. They can withstand the inefficiency of electrolysis because of it.
<
p>
There is, however, quite a lot of new storage for electricity coming on the market that is not hydrogen. The electric cars GM produced then subsequently killed in the 90s I think ran on conventional batteries, and could go a couple hundred miles without new charge. Since then, other breakthroughs have been made, I’ve heard.
<
p>
Also. I’d rather see a $100B initiative to help all Americans get efficient. Imagine a country that reduces its energy need to 50%, or less, than what we use now!! Over the next 10 years even! We could EASILY do it. And then, suddenly, decentralized personal solar panels (which will become more efficient by then anyway) can definitely power much of what we use daily, supplemented by wind, tidal, geothermal, etc.
<
p>
Rep. Finegold is commendable in making his proposal, but in reviewing it, and his non-answers to these questions I believe he has not come to truly understand the scientific problems still to be solved, and is just trying to push himself out front of the pack of candidates with a solution not yet ready for primetime. Just my $.02.
but I don’t think we could cut waste 50% in 10 years.
<
p>
In transportation? Nah. New vehicles could be 50% more efficient 10 years from now, but you’d still have lots of todays vehicles, plus the ones from 2007-2017.
<
p>
Improvements in mass transit could help, but even smaller improvements take years of planning and construction; the kind of improvements we’d need to really reduce inner city, to-the-city, and intracity waste using mass transit would likely take 10-20 years to work out.
<
p>
And, you can make cities more attractive so that people choose to live closer to work, but people don’t just up-and-move too often, so those kinds of effects take time too.
<
p>
In electricity usage? 50% is a lofty goal. Improvements in efficiency of appliances would follow the same curve as autos. CF bulbs are a big step, but it’s not something we can buy our way out of. To get 50% improvement, methinks lifestyle changes like drying clothes on a rack instead of running the dryer will have to take place — and that’s not going to happen unless the price of electricity shoots way up; something neither Dems nor GOP want.
<
p>
In heating/cooling? Nah, you can’t get 50% there either. New buildings might get there, but housing stock and commercial stock sticks around a long time, and retrofitting all the old buildings over a 10 year span isn’t going to happen.
I don’t mean to pooh-pooh. I’d love for it to happen. But, the political will isn’t there, the social will isn’t there, and technology alone can’t get it done. IMO, of course.
<
p>
Still, if we could get to the point where we just plain weren’t using any more fossil fuels year-after-year, but instead slowly cut into the fossil fuels, both petroleum and coal, then we’d have really changed American society for the better.
<
p>
That’s fantastic news. Point me to some press releases, some legislation, some work on a committee, a web page with proposals, something. With all due respect, I want to see proof of “leadership” and I want to see those “bold ideas”.
<
p>
I’m not trying to be confrontational — I love that multiple candidates are vying for the crown of energy solutions. But, the proof is in the puddin’. Where’s the puddin’?
It seems that Barry petitioned for tax credits for the purchase of alternative fule vehicles, including – you guessed it – ETHANOL!
<
p>
<
p>
Source: Mass.gov
<
p>
Emphasis mine.
<
p>
And yet, this diary claims that he doesn’t support ethanol? Is it corn ethanol he doesn’t support, and the ethanol mentioned in this petition will come from some other source? Or is he just another candidate talking out of both sides of his mouth? Enquiring minds (and Eldridge supporters) want to know…
Finegold says that corn ethanol is and “environmentally relevant innovation” in Iowa, and coal-to-liquid is “relevant” in ND … but he doesn’t support those.
<
p>
I suppose that Eldridge’s attack was not totally accurate, but I can see how he could get confused, based on the language Nairi is using here.
<
p>
And I guess I would just dispute that those technologies are actually “relevant fronts of environmental innovation”.
<
p>
In any event, can we get a transcript of the stump speech?
Barry’s record on the state level include:
<
p>
– Barry Finegold helped create the Massachusetts Hydrogen Coalition and has proposed cutting-edge legislative initiatives to put the Merrimack Valley at the forefront of fuel cell technology.
– The “Massachusetts Renewable Energy Road Map,” a package of policy ideas designed to invigorate our economy and protect the environment with research-and-development grants and tax incentives for Massachusetts companies developing fuel-cell technology. The legislation also creates a $1,500 state tax credit for consumers who purchase hybrid vehicles.
– As co-chair of the North East Solid Waste Committee, Finegold secured $54 million to assist communities throughout the Merrimack Valley such as Dracut, Westford, and Tewksbury to address increasing costs of waste disposal. This funding helped towns and cities meet environmental regulations and implement clean air technology upgrades at power plants.
look one in the same to me – his hydrogen cell boondoggle.
<
p>
but point 3 looks interesting and on the up and up. can you provide links to further information? i’d like to read up a bit on how it all works. thanks!
After working in the fuel cell industry for several years, I can say without hesitation, the hydrogen (fuel cell) economy has many years to go until it is commercially viable and sustainable. Many of your comments are correct in that the three biggest hurdles to commercialization are: (1) clean/reliable source of hydrogen, (2) infrastructure, and (3) technology.
<
p>
There are several companies in the USA who are currently chipping away at these hurdles, but what is most interesting, is that different geographical areas of the country are specializing in different areas of fuel cell research. For example: California is leading the pack with respect to hydrogen infrastructure, while there are several firms in Pennsylvania and Texas working on fuel storage. On the other hand, the State of Massachusetts has been investing in improving fuel cell technology. With educational institutions in MA, such as MIT, WPI, and Harvard ? fuel cells are a common topic of research in our state, and several departments list fuel cells as one of their primary areas of focus. Firms such as Nuvera and Lynntech, are producing fuel cell installations in and around Massachusetts, and in order to continue to do so, will need local governmental funding and support.
<
p>
In a brief discussion I had with Mr. Finegold a few months ago, it appears to me that his vision for fuel cells stems from the research side. Investing in our state?s fuel cell technology programs is a great way to lead the path to a future hydrogen economy. Specializing in fuel cell technology makes sense for Massachusetts, especially given our state?s history and dedication to fuel cell technology. I think Mt. Finegold?s fuel cell vision is right on track.
<
p>
The real test is making sure that our fuel cell technology can finally be linked to research in infrastructure and hydrogen storage ? but this task must be facilitated by our national government.