Even though the process itself looks horribly complex and inefficient the effort may still be worthwhile. The cost of storing and distributing the gases is already paid; that infrastructure - already built - is a big, big, plus for NG or SNG in France. But E-P is correct, you first must have the RE. And does France really want to repeat the German experience with wind and solar? And how much must the grid be changed to move the RE to specific sites where the SNG is generated. Yes, in the US new nuclear plant costs are unbearable while construction never seems to end. That wasn't true fifty years ago either here or abroad.

Seems like a lot of expense to determine very little. It is almost as if they believe the process will magically cost less than the sum of its steps. Or maybe I am grouchy today. FTA: Hydrogen supply chain feasibility study. The demonstration project will provide data for assessing future courses of action required to reduce hydrogen costs, including the establishment of a mass production process, and the steps needed to implement deregulation. It will also contribute to discussions on developing a model for promoting the adoption of hydrogen through technological innovation, and the development of full-fledged supply chains, based on projections of needs in 2030.

Probably a good car. But you have to wonder why car makers bother, CNG isn't the future, or the present.

The diagram looks odd to me. The bottom orange block, H2, appears directly from the sun. But H2 doesn't come directly from the sun. I have to assume they omitted two boxes like those shown for Electrolytic H2 into the H2Bioil Process. The diagram may have been made that way to avoid clutter??? Mannstein reminds us solar thermal concentration with salt/storage is alive and running. That strikes me as the best approach for utilities. The world has a lot of empty desert, and in North Africa, at least, the NIMBY voters won't stop it.

BabyF: Lighter and more efficient ICEs are being made. Improvements come to market every year. I expect this to happen for another five to ten years. Eventually there there will be little or no profit to be gained from further ICE refinements and capital will not be invested. Fifty, or even twenty, years ago manufacturers felt there was very little profit potential in improving efficiency or reducing weight. So they didn't. They concentrated on reducing engine production cost instead.

Kelly: So this is certain. It seems rather tentative to me after a very quick reading. But others with far more knowledge will be commenting soon.

Reads much as you would expect given the subject. In the Behavioral Change suggestions they write 'polices' several times where I expected to see 'policies'. But maybe 'polices' is really what meant. As in 'cats and mices'. They will be the cats. Somewhat more seriously. I agree with mahonj about this. The best way is to tax consumption at the time of fuel purchase. That doesn't require new bureaus, etc. They can just increase the existing tax rate. Collecting more tax when a vehicle is sold is also a simple approach. These transactions are already taxed. Just boost the rate.

Clett: "I'd rather just bypass the whole biomass requirement and engineer cyanobacteria instead of E. coli. That way you could take CO2, water and light and convert it directly to diesel with no middle man." I think everyone would rather that. The Devil is in the details. Meanwhile, I believe fuel from biomass will progress faster and can reduce our energy imports.

Henrik and JMartin: H: I don't see that they have to produce motors in order to pick ...and validate the best, etc. IMO it won't hurt but the benefits of actual production seem nebulous. We can watch, all auto makers face such decisions. JM: The money flows to and from Washington are now probably incomprehensible. Apparently the Fed and Treasury were befuddled even before O took office. And a dozen departments and agencies such as DOE make awards for hundreds if not thousands of reasons. Hope this posts. Sometimes I cannot post at GCC and cannot detect see a reason.

???? Can GM somehow design better motors than the best electric motor suppliers, build plant, and produce them cheaper with UAW employees? The article does say they won't make all their motors. So their motives may go beyond build better motors cheaper. And this may be one motive. "GM was selected in August by the US Department of Energy for a $105-million grant for the construction of US manufacturing capabilities to produce electric motors and related electric drive components." Perhaps they figure they can keep federal money flowing in indefinitely to help them build the motors.

All developed nations talk a good tech game. But the Japanese seem to be making the greatest efforts to deploy it. They are going for smart grid technology and charging stations and EVs like addicts go after cocaine. Time will tell if it is a great initiative for them or evidence that they have too much money. I wish them well.

The report is actually about the expected consequences of tax policies. Want less production of CO2? Then tax it heavily. It is hardly rocket science to forecast that premium autos will feature premium systems for reducing emissions. And lower cost autos will be different. Premium autos are built differently because they are intended to seem different, better, and exclusive. Sometimes the "better" part isn't quite true but the different and exclusive can be relied upon. I believe you can already buy some very uber-modern systems on high-end Mercedes. Just show them the money.

The "delivery box" sounds like a workable system. I am not sure if it is really needed for the charging. Wouldn't a power meter that can read a card, ala ATMs, do as well? But for package and mail delivery it does require some uniformity. The Post Office and delivery firms would both need access in the US. I don't know how that is handled in Japan. On the plus side, I like systems that are proved, they have used it for packages for 15 years in Japan. In the US colleges dorms seem like a natural place to use the delivery box application.

Good news. Their cost - which someday will be my cost and yours - is going in the right direction. But there are "costs" and there are "costs." Some are more real than others. That is not to say POET is fudging. No reason to think so. And companies have valid reasons to not reveal details to competitors. There are so many subsidies, hidden and direct, in energy production that we must view announcements with caution. Especially cost numbers about alcohols from newer processes.

This is a Dutch thing and I don't understand. HarveyD gets it right. This is a flat tax, in effect a sales tax on driving not fuel. It does not discourage driving large and wasteful vehicles. He is also right about GPS. Why introduce such a complex scheme? That can only benefit police surveilence, and require more public employees. If the government wants revenue then raise the fuel tax. That requires a few memos, no new public employees, can be done quickly, and discourages fuel consumption. Many public schemes turn out badly, but very few proposals seem to offer no benefits whatever. At the moment this seems a contender.

I think Chrysler is too far gone and the relentless jaws of economics must them into particles. Fiat shows little or no interest in putting in hard cash. But they can supply technology and hope to draw in government money. Too big to fail? Fiat has been on a growth binge making alliances and/or buying when they don't have to use their own money. That might work if the world economy turns strongly upward. Otherwise I can't see how they can win. These announcements themselves don't mean much. Marketing must praise and push what they have no matter how uncompetitive it is.

I think Chrysler is too far gone and the relentless jaws of economics must them into particles. Fiat shows little or no interest in putting in hard cash. But they can supply technology and hope to draw in government money. Too big to fail? Fiat has been on a growth binge making alliances and/or buying when they don't have to use their own money. That might work if the world economy turns strongly upward. Otherwise I can't see how they can win. These announcements themselves don't mean much. Marketing must praise and push what they have no matter how uncompetitive it is.

Will someone involved in the industry make a comment about the value of these tests and calculations? It sounds like interesting work but not innovative. And I'm not sure what problem it will solve.

I think they should make the plugs compatible at the vehicle. And have the vehicle detect what voltage it is offered and charge accordingly. The vehicle would default to a rather slow charge. If the owner wants a faster charge allow them to select it manually. Henrik. Tesla owners report significant power lost to heat during charging. I have to believe that very fast charging is going to make that worse. And I think it will be very bad for the batteries, at least those of today. So I doubt that multiple charging cables into one vehicle is the way to go.

Let's look at infrastructure not vehicles for a moment. I doubt anyone will argue that FC vehicles will be more common than EVs and PHEVs for the next six years. OK, Toyota says 2015 for fuel cells. Since the industry always means Dec 31 that means six years plus. Rather consistent with prior estimates. The hydrogen infrastructure (HI) doesn't exist. And since we don't know what volumes of FC will come out by, or in 2015, it is very hard to establish an infrastructure construction plan or schedule. OTOH EVs and PHEVs will need grid power (some will be charged by PV but that won't be the rule for quite some time) so we should assume the grid and utilities must prepare to supply more. Building the HI will be of benefit only if the FC becomes economically feasible. But improving the grid and utility generation benefits everyone even if the EV and PHEV does not prevail. So I think major HI investment is a bad deal for now. But emphasis on the grid and utilities will produce a good return. What would be the arguments for serious spending on HI now?

I suspect EPA has developed some sort of search engine - something like an inverse Google. They ask it, what don't we control, who haven't we issued regulations to, what activity no matter how small doesn't need our direction? The answers come out in batches of 1000. Mobilization is ordered, and across the fruited plain EPA marches out and combats Evil.

The outline sounds rather objective although there is no doubt where the ELI stands. The report might be worth reading in detail. The Foreign Tax Credit is not as simple as one might wish. It isn't easy to tax fuel and energy production activities done overseas in sovereign nations. And if you try the corporate forms will be modified to evade your efforts. US recyclable producers would be getting tax credits if they did their work overseas. But recyclable fuel -mostly ethanol- is a domestic industry protected by tariff. The tariff is a subsidy, whether it is considered in the report isn't mentioned. And alternative energies such as wind and solar and geothermal are domestic almost by definition. At least with our present technology. I would prefer that they would keep hydropower out of these studies as they exclude nuclear. Hydropower produces a lot of electricity. But it is the outputs of the growing alternatives we really are interested in. In the US hydropower is old, the big dams were built decades ago and there will be little added hydropower in the future. Others will differ but I would remove it from studies.

Keely: I wasn't aware their deliveries have not met promised dates. But I won't dispute facts. If that is so then it is so.

Their amazing moneyfinder/publicity generator continues to perform. A real crunch is coming for Tesla, competitive EVs will be available soon. But so far so good. There is little to criticize. They have delivered the vehicles promised.

Again the US won't get the highest mileage variations. But we are starting to see real choice among cars that give 40+mpg. And 50+ is coming. This FOCUS would be nice with a six or seven speed automatic of dual clutch design. I see Renault announced still another one today. Ford will get one into the Focus when they can.