Hydrogen is not exactly a fuel. That is, we don't burn it to make energy. It's used more as a medium for storing and transporting energy.

The science of hydrogen fuel cell systems is based on a simple concept. When you combine hydrogen with oxygen, energy is released. You get electricity. What makes it such a clean technology is that the byproducts of that chemical reaction are just heat and water.  So when a fuel cell takes hydrogen from a fuel tank and combines it with oxygen in the air, it produces electricity and emits only a wisp of heated water vapor from the tailpipe.

Hydrogen is combustible (remember the Hindenburg?), and needs to be handled carefully. However, there are easy ways to demonstrate electrolysis, which breaks water apart into oxygen and hydrogen, and the opposite process of joining those chemicals. In fact, you could make a type of fuel cell in your kitchen, with a popsicle stick, battery clips, Scotch tape and a few other household products. You do need one item that can't be found in your kitchen: platinum wire or platinum-coated nickel wire.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. And hydrogen fuel cell conversion is a squeaky clean technology. But the production of hydrogen for use in fuel cells — that can produce a lot of carbon dioxide. In fact, most hydrogen is currently made by stripping, or re-forming, natural gas. That's one of the ongoing criticisms of fuel-cell technology, that it generates greenhouse gas emissions just to get the hydrogen in the first place.

Fuel cells also can store energy generated by solar-powered electrolysis, as well as similar energy generated by wind and hydropower. That's the kind of hydrogen generation that advocates hope to eventually use in fuel cells. But being able to store energy also makes it extremely attractive to harnessing wind, solar and hydropower.

For example, California could generate a lot of wind energy at night, but since electricity has to be used right away, that nighttime, offpeak energy is less valuable. But if it could be stored in a fuel cell through the electrolysis process, that would make it much more lucrative.

Listen to the Where's my Hydrogen Highway? radio report online, and watch our Web Extra Slideshow.

As this radio story airs, Congress is debating two Cash for Clunkers proposals, one from the Senate and one from the House of Representatives. (A third proposal, also from the Senate, is almost identical to the House version.) Both would pay consumers to scrap their "clunkers" in exchange for brand-new, more fuel-efficient models. Both define "clunker" as a car that gets less than 18 miles per gallon. But after that, they diverge.

The House version comes from Democrats on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. If it passes, a consumer would get a $3,500 voucher for trading in a truck with 15 miles per gallon in exchange for buying a new truck that gets 16 miles per gallon - a one MPG difference. (If the new truck got 17 miles a gallon, the consumer would earn $4,500). That's why environmentalists complain that the legislation is more about stimulating car sales than it is about getting gas guzzlers off the road.

The Senate version proposed by U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), puts the bar a bit higher. In order to qualify for the $3,500 voucher, that same replacement truck would have to get 20 MPG - five miles per gallon more than the old truck. (An improvement of seven miles per gallon would earn the consumer a $4,500 voucher.)

Interestingly, this is a compromise even for Senator Feinstein herself. Check out her original, more stringent, Cash for Clunkers bill here. Proposed in January, it required stricter efficiency from the replacement vehicle, and would have allowed consumers to use their vouchers for used cars, or for public transit. Those conditions were junked, presumably, because they don't stimulate new car sales.

This article from the Christian Science Monitor, takes the number crunching even farther. Among the details worth considering is the "carbon cost" of making all these new vehicles that consumers will be enouraged to buy, should C4C pass: between 3.5 to 12.4 tons of CO2 per vehicle, according to a Duke economist.

Listen to the Cash for Clunkers radio report online.

Credit: NASA.

When the LCROSS satellite, nicknamed Centaur, smacks into the south pole of the moon in late October, it is expected to produce a plume of dust 37 miles high, which may be visible from Earth with a good backyard telescope. It will be visible in an arc from Hawaii to Texas.

If you'd like to catch the impact, the Chabot Space and Science Center in Oakland is hosting a Shooting the Moon star party on the night of impact. Morrison Planetarium in San Francisco may host a star-gazing event, as well, but it hasn't been announced yet. And you could check in on other observatories in the Bay Area, as well: Lick observatory in the Santa Cruz mountains, Foothill observatory in Los Altos Hills, Sonoma State observatory in Rohnert Park, and the Fremont Peak observatory in the East Bay.

Not all of them will be open to the public; for instance, Foothill Observatory will be closed to the public, because they’ve been asked to take photographs of the event.

If you know anyone with a 10-inch telescope (that's the diameter of the lens), you can bet that telescope will be lined up to look skyward when the LCROSS probe hits the moon.

If the impact goes well, then the plume above the moon's surface could hover there for hours. It will make its own crater on the moon about 6 feet deep and 30 yards wide, so the plume of dust will not be visible to the naked eye, or even through binoculars.

The exact date, time and even the exact location of the impact have not yet been determined. Keep your eye on NASA's site for more information.

And one aside: This impact will not hurt the moon, or send it off its orbit. That may seem apparent to many people, but NASA Ames officials say those are the most-asked questions about the project.

Listen to the Crash Landing radio report online.

For these notes, I thought I'd focus on something that didn’t make it into the sea lions radio broadcast: the necropsy.

Each year the Marine Mammal Center treats somewhere between 600-1000 animals, including California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, Northern elephant seals, and steller sea lions. About half of them are treated successfully at the center and released into the Pacific. The other half either die naturally or have to be euthanized.

Most of them end up at the center's hospital after passersby spot the animals on the beach and sense something’s wrong. (The Marine Mammal center responds to calls anywhere between Mendocino and San Louis Obispo Counties — some 600 miles of coastline.) Some problems are human-caused, like boat-propeller injuries or ingested fishing nets and hooks. Other times, it's cancer, domoic acid poisoning, or leptospirosis. Sometimes, it's hard to tell exactly what happened — hence the need for necropsies.

On the day that Quest intern Jennifer Skene and I visited the center, veterinarian Nicola Pussini performed two necropsies, both on sea lions. One animal seemed to have died from a tumor underneath his fin; the other was a suspected domoic acid intoxication.

Each necropsy takes about an hour and a half. First Pussini measures the animal, then he slices it open and inspects every part, from tongue to tail. He inspects the teeth, pulls out all the organs, checks to see how much fat the animal has. The data, along with tissue samples, are archived and shared with other research institutions. This is the kind of basic research that Marine Mammal Center staff cite when people ask why they devote so many resources (most of it from private donations) to animals whose populations are neither threatened nor endangered.

I should mention that I didn't exactly see this entire process firsthand. Let's just say that after my first strong whiff of sea lion intestine, I felt a compelling need to go check on things outside the necropsy room. Luckily for me, Jennifer has the stomach of a true scientist and managed to both hold the microphone and take photos. Luckily for you, we’re sparing you her gorier shots.

Listen to the Sea Lion Rescue radio report online, and watch our photo slideshow.

Cal Poly's CP-4 mini-satellite in orbit. Credit: The Aerospace
Corporation.

It's a classic engineering story - a garage inventor spends years working in isolation, only to produce something that gets the attention of the world. Ok, the CubeSat story may not be quite as romantic, but it does have a lot of the same ingredients.

Professors at Stanford University and Cal Poly created CubeSats - 10 by 10 by 10 centimeter mini-satellites - as enginneering projects to give their students hands-on experience. Compared to standard satellite missions, which can run hundreds of millions of dollars and take years to complete, CubeSat missions are mean to be done cheaply and quickly.

CubeSat is also a standard - a basic blueprint that any university program can use. CubeSats are actually known as "FedEx satellites," since universities can mail them to Cal Poly to arrange a ride into space. They've created launching devices called P-Pods (a box that fits the CubeSats perfectly) so they can piggyback on larger rocket launches. Once the main cargo is deployed, the P-Pod releases the CubeSats into orbit. Depending how high they are, CubeSats can orbit for more than a decade before they burn up in the atmosphere.

What started at universities has spread - NASA, Boeing and other aerospace companies all have mini-satellite programs. Despite the small size, CubeSats are actually able to do valuable research. They can space test new technology, submitting it to all the rigors of space travel like solar radiation and launch stress. Recreating those conditions on the ground can be very expensive.

CubeSats can also gather scientific data. On Tuesday, NASA will be launching Pharmasat, which they hope will be their second nano-satellite in orbit. It will carry yeast samples, and once in orbit will hit them with an anti-fungal to see if their resistance is increased in space. NASA has previously observed that some bacteria are more resistant to antibiotics in space, something that could be dangerous for future human space travel.

You can tune in on Tuesday evening for the Pharmasat launch. Three other CubeSats from Cal Poly and other organizations will also be getting a lift into space.

Listen to the Do-It-Yourself Mini-Satellites radio report online, and see our Web Extra: Mini-Satellites Slideshow.

There is no proven cure for Sudden Oak Death. But that doesn't mean you can't find people selling cures.

In fact, the Internet is full of theories – and their related products – that explain how to treat Sudden Oak Death. The problem with them, says UC Berkeley researcher Matteo Garbelotto, is that they don't work. And in fact, he adds, they could actually harm people's backyard oak trees.

One of the most popular treatments says that part of the problem with oaks is that they're weakened by acidic soils (presumably from acid rain), and the theory is that heavy doses of calcium in the soil could restore natural balance and strengthen trees against the Sudden Oak Death pathogen. In hopes that the theory might bear fruit, the Garbelotto lab recently tested it.

The study found that it did nothing to stop the Sudden Oak Death pathogen. In fact, Garbelotto said, it's like giving a glass of orange juice to someone with a terminal disease. And in some cases, he added, it could have a detrimental effect.

A different Garbelotto study showed that a phosphonate fungicide, brand-named Agri-Fos, can prevent the onset of Sudden Oak Death, for a period of about two years. This is the only product on the market that is effective, he said – not as a cure, but as a two-year preventative.

Some people who love their oak trees decide to try both treatments, Garbelotto said. And since the phosphonate that does work is acidic, and the calcium treatment that doesn't work is basic, then you could end up inhibiting the treatment that actually works. That is, if you use both treatments, he said, the calcium could actually negate the positive effect of the phosphonate.

From 10 a.m. to noon on Sunday, May 16, Garbelotto will lead a "Sudden Oak Death Blitz" at the East Bay Parks Botanic Garden in Berkeley's Tilden Park. The event, sponsored by the California Oak Mortality Task Force, trains participants to spot vegetation infected with P. ramorum and collect samples for testing. The training is useful for homeowners who want to monitor their own trees for Sudden Oak Death.

Listen to the Sudden Oak Death radio report online.

Today, the National Research Council issued its long-awaited report on the Drakes Bay Oyster Company – is their operation harming the environment or not?

For those following the controversy (background: Oysters on the Outs, Sep 28, 2007) – and few Marin County land use issues have ignited local passions the way this one has – the report may seem to settle some scores.

Speaking to KQED Public Radio, the study’s lead scientist, Charles Peterson, said "We evaluated all the science in Drakes Estero… and from that concluded that there is no major impact of the Drakes Estero mariculture on the ecosystem of Drakes Estero."

This is contrary to initial findings from the National Park Service, which had sought to shut down the longstanding oyster operation. According to the Park Service, oysters, a non-native species, coat the bay floor in feces and harm other, native wildlife such as eelgrass and harbor seals. After protests from the oyster company and many of its neighbors, the Park Service and Senator Diane Feinstein tapped the National Research Council to take an independent look.

Now, it's up to the Park Service to decide how to react to the NRC's study.

You may listen to the original "Oysters on the Outs" radio report online, as well as find additional links and resources. Also see additional photos for that radio report.

(Editor's note: Today we've got a guest post from Nick Vidinsky, Producer of KQED's Health Dialogues)

Hi everybody. I want to let the QUEST community know that over at KQED’s Health Dialogues, we just launched a new project, called Healthy Ideas: Californians Weigh In on Health Care Reform.

In his 100th day press briefing a few days ago, President Obama reiterated his desire to enact health care reform by the end of 2009. The President has also put out a call to all Americans to submit our ideas on just how to do that. So, Health Dialogues decided that we’d let Washington know what Californians think.

Is the cost of new medical technologies worth the potential health benefits? What can we do to eliminate health disparities across socioeconomic backgrounds? Should everyone be required to purchase health insurance?

Healthy Ideas is a conversation among academics, health care professionals, policy think tanks and the general public about what kind of health care reform California wants and needs. During the next two months, you can join the dialogue by reading our authors’ weekly posts, rating them and contributing your own thoughts and questions. At the end of the project, on July 1, we’ll summarize your ideas and deliver them to California’s representatives in Washington, as well as the Obama Administration, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus and Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Edward Kennedy.

To contribute your thoughts and let Washington know what kind of health care reform you want, join the dialogue at Healthy Ideas: Californians Weigh In on Health Care Reform.

Thanks!
Nick Vidinsky
Producer, Health Dialogues

The swine flu virus. Credit: C. S. Goldsmith and A. Balish, CDC.

As this story is being produced, the reports on swine flu are changing hourly. Cases are popping up closer and closer to home, and the CDC is updating several times a day on the spread of the virus, and plans to fight it.

The $64,000 question is how worried we should be.

Swine flu is largely untreatable: The two effective antiviral drugs, Tamiflu and Relenza, must be taken within 48 hours of infection to stop the spread of the virus.

That leaves a vaccine. Vaccines are relatively straightforward to create, but they take time. If swine flu becomes a deadly pandemic (meaning it's not only widespread — a pandemic – but more lethal than it appears to be so far) the demand for vaccines would likely far outpace supply. According to Art Reingold, at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health, it could take years for doses to reach everyone in the world who's vulnerable to the disease. Here in the US, we have very few vaccine producing facilities, which means we'd be competing with other countries' priorities to treat their own citizens.

Our story focuses on what could, one day, be the answer to pandemics like this one: a universal vaccine. Scientists like Harvard Medical School's Wayne Marasco believe that, in just a few years, we might be able to inoculate ourselves against nearly all influenza viruses – like a tetanus shot, against the flu. Universal vaccines will come too late for our current swine flu pandemic. But they may well be our response to pandemics of the future.

Listen to the Swine Flu and You radio report online.

Since people seem to nod off a bit when I say I'm working on a story about energy efficiency, I've had to re-tool my pitch. "It's a story about how installing solar panels or a wind turbine is the last thing you should do to green your house," I say, perhaps a little over-dramatically.

I have nothing against solar panels, but they do seem to illustrate our collective love of gadgetry. Why else would we leap (or at least dream of leaping) to spend $5,000-$10,000 on solar panels when many of us could make a significant dent in our utility bills with a trip to Home Depot? Small things, like weather-stripping your doors, or making sure you have a well-insulated attic, can make a big difference in how much heat or AC your house consumes.

If you qualify as low-income (in this case, that's less than $44,000 for a family of four) you can get help with this project. If you live in California, you'll find your local participating agency here (or by calling 1-866-675-6623). Elsewhere, begin by contacting your state agency, found here. The Weatherization Assistance Program has received a 10-fold budget increase under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, so now's a great time to apply.

WAP won't replace your TV, but you might consider doing so yourself. Televisions tend to be the third biggest electricity user in the house (after heating/AC and refrigerators). But they don't have to be. All the new features — plasma screens, HD, widescreen — can be (and are, in some models) achieved using less electricity. The California Energy Commission is proposing new TV standards that would cut electricity use by a third.

James Sweeney, who heads the Stanford University Precourt Energy Efficiency Center, calculates that collectively – with current, affordable technologies, and without sacrificing our quality of life – Americans could cut our energy use by 30 percent.

Here's the kicker: To produce that same amount of electricity, we'd have to increase solar and wind by 60-fold. That means, for every solar panel and wind turbine in the country, we'd have to build 59 new ones, plus all the power lines and roads they'd entail. Or, to consider another non-fossil fuels alternative, that's four new nuclear power plants for every existing one.

Listen to the Let's Weatherize! radio report online, and watch our Weatherization Slideshow.