Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

A Hydrogen Economy Is a Bad Idea

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

While perhaps this is not a personal health issue,

I can see it as a global health concern...

Comments anyone?

Misty

http://www..com

 

 

A Hydrogen Economy Is a Bad Idea

By David Morris, AlterNet

February 24, 2003

 

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15239

 

When George Bush proposed a $1.7 billion program to promote

hydrogen-fueled cars in the State of the Union Address, both sides of

the aisle applauded. Almost everyone supports a hydrogen economy –

conservatives and liberals, tree huggers and oil drillers. Such

unanimity forecloses serious discussion. That's unfortunate. An

aggressive pursuit of a hydrogen economy is wrongheaded and

shortsighted.

 

To understand why, we need to start with the basics. Hydrogen is the

most abundant element on the planet. But it cannot be harvested

directly. It must be extracted from another material. There is an

upside to this and a downside. The upside is that a wide variety of

materials contain hydrogen, which is one reason it has attracted such

widespread support. Everyone has a dog in this fight.

 

Renewable energy is a very little dog. Environmentalists envision an

energy economy where hydrogen comes from water, and the energy used

to accomplish this comes from wind. Big dogs like the nuclear

industry also foresee fidyl a water-based hydrogen economy, but with

nuclear as the power source that electrolyzes water. Nucleonics Week

boasts that nuclear power " is the only way to produce hydrogen on a

large scale without contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. "

 

For the fossil fuel industry, not surprisingly, hydrocarbons will

provide most of our future hydrogen. They already have a significant

head start. Almost 50 percent of the world's commercial hydrogen now

comes from natural gas. Another 20 percent is derived from coal.

 

The automobile and oil companies are betting that petroleum will be

the hydrogen source of the future. It was General Motors, after all,

that coined the phrase " the hydrogen economy " .

 

What does all this mean? A hydrogen economy will not be a renewable

energy economy. For the next 20-50 years hydrogen will overwhelmingly

be derived from fossil fuels or with nuclear energy.

 

Consider that it has taken more than 30 years for the renewable

energy industry to capture 1 percent of the transportation fuel

market (ethanol) and 2 percent of the electricity market (wind,

solar, biomass). Renewables are poised to rapidly expand their

presence. A hydrogen economy would be a potentially debilitating

diversion.

 

As the President's 2004 budget demonstrates, any new money for

hydrogen will be taken largely from budgets for energy efficiency and

renewable energy. From a federal point of view, then, the more

aggressively we pursue hydrogen, the less aggressively we pursue more

beneficial technologies.

 

To be successful, a hydrogen initiative will require the expenditure

of hundreds of billions of dollars to build an entirely new energy

infrastructure (pipelines, fueling stations, automobile engines).

Much of this will come from public money. Little of this expenditure

will directly benefit renewables. Indeed, it is likely that renewable

energy will have about the same share of the hydrogen market in 2040

as it now has of the transportation and electricity markets.

 

Far better to spend the billions the President wants to spend on

hydrogen to increase renewable energy's share of the energy market

from 1-2 percent to 25, 35, or even 50 percent in the same time

frame.

 

Not only will a hydrogen economy do little to expand renewable

energy, it will increase pollution. Making hydrogen takes energy. We

are using a fuel that could be used directly to provide electricity

or mechnical power or heat to instead make hydrogen, which is then

used to make electricity. Back in 1993 William Hoagland, senior

project coordinator at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's

hydrogen program, prophetically told Time Magazine, " I can't see why

anyone would invest in additional equipment to make hydrogen rather

than simply putting the electricity on the grid. "

 

We can, for example, run vehicles on natural gas or generate

electricity using natural gas right now. Converting natural gas into

hydrogen and then hydrogen into electricity increases the amount of

greenhouse gases emitted.

 

There is another energy-related problem with hydrogen. It is the

lightest element, about eight times lighter than methane. Compacting

it for storage or transport is expensive and energy intensive. A

recent study by two Swiss engineers concludes, " We have to accept

that [hydrogen's] ... physical properties are incompatible with the

requirements of the energy market. Production, packaging, storage,

transfer and delivery of the gas ... are so energy consuming that

alternatives should be considered. "

 

The most compelling rationale for making hydrogen is that it is a way

to store energy. That could benefit renewable energy sources like

wind and sunlight that can't generate energy on demand. But batteries

and flywheels can store electricity directly. The all-electric

vehicle has not yet found a commercial market, but we should

acknowledge the rapid advances made in electric storage technologies

in the last few years.

 

Many people see the new hybrid vehicles as a bridge to a new type of

transportation system. I agree, but with a different twist. Toyota

and Honda are selling tens of thousands of cars that have small gas

engines and batteries. American automobile companies will soon join

them. Toyota and Honda and others are looking in the future to

substitute a hydrogen fuel cell for the gasoline engine. That work

should continue, but policymakers should also develop incentives and

regulations that channel engineering ingenuity into improving the

electric storage side of the hybrid system.

 

Currently, a Toyota Prius may get 5 percent of its overall energy

from its batteries and could only go a mile or so as a zero emission

vehicle. A second generation Prius might get 10 percent of its energy

from batteries and might have a range of 2-3 miles. Why not encourage

Toyota and Honda and others to increase the proportion of the energy

they use from the batteries?

 

We need to get beyond the glib, " we can run our cars on water, " news

bites and soberly assess the value of a massive national effort to

convert to a hydrogen economy. When we do so, I believe, we will

conclude that the hydrogen economy has serious, perhaps fatal

shortcomings.

 

David Morris is vice-president of the Institute for Local

Self-Reliance [ http://www.ilsr.org/ ].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Misty.

 

Trust an oil man to see the possibilities. Truly renewable energy will be

the last thing promoted by a government that is bought and paid for by

monied lobbyists.

 

Shame on us all for letting this happen.

 

Namaste`

 

Walt

 

-

<mistytrepke

 

Friday, February 28, 2003 9:36 AM

A Hydrogen Economy Is a Bad Idea

 

 

While perhaps this is not a personal health issue,

I can see it as a global health concern...

Comments anyone?

Misty

http://www..com

 

 

A Hydrogen Economy Is a Bad Idea

By David Morris, AlterNet

February 24, 2003

 

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15239

 

When George Bush proposed a $1.7 billion program to promote

hydrogen-fueled cars in the State of the Union Address, both sides of

the aisle applauded. Almost everyone supports a hydrogen economy -

conservatives and liberals, tree huggers and oil drillers. Such

unanimity forecloses serious discussion. That's unfortunate. An

aggressive pursuit of a hydrogen economy is wrongheaded and

shortsighted.

 

To understand why, we need to start with the basics. Hydrogen is the

most abundant element on the planet. But it cannot be harvested

directly. It must be extracted from another material. There is an

upside to this and a downside. The upside is that a wide variety of

materials contain hydrogen, which is one reason it has attracted such

widespread support. Everyone has a dog in this fight.

 

Renewable energy is a very little dog. Environmentalists envision an

energy economy where hydrogen comes from water, and the energy used

to accomplish this comes from wind. Big dogs like the nuclear

industry also foresee fidyl a water-based hydrogen economy, but with

nuclear as the power source that electrolyzes water. Nucleonics Week

boasts that nuclear power " is the only way to produce hydrogen on a

large scale without contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. "

 

For the fossil fuel industry, not surprisingly, hydrocarbons will

provide most of our future hydrogen. They already have a significant

head start. Almost 50 percent of the world's commercial hydrogen now

comes from natural gas. Another 20 percent is derived from coal.

 

The automobile and oil companies are betting that petroleum will be

the hydrogen source of the future. It was General Motors, after all,

that coined the phrase " the hydrogen economy " .

 

What does all this mean? A hydrogen economy will not be a renewable

energy economy. For the next 20-50 years hydrogen will overwhelmingly

be derived from fossil fuels or with nuclear energy.

 

Consider that it has taken more than 30 years for the renewable

energy industry to capture 1 percent of the transportation fuel

market (ethanol) and 2 percent of the electricity market (wind,

solar, biomass). Renewables are poised to rapidly expand their

presence. A hydrogen economy would be a potentially debilitating

diversion.

 

As the President's 2004 budget demonstrates, any new money for

hydrogen will be taken largely from budgets for energy efficiency and

renewable energy. From a federal point of view, then, the more

aggressively we pursue hydrogen, the less aggressively we pursue more

beneficial technologies.

 

To be successful, a hydrogen initiative will require the expenditure

of hundreds of billions of dollars to build an entirely new energy

infrastructure (pipelines, fueling stations, automobile engines).

Much of this will come from public money. Little of this expenditure

will directly benefit renewables. Indeed, it is likely that renewable

energy will have about the same share of the hydrogen market in 2040

as it now has of the transportation and electricity markets.

 

Far better to spend the billions the President wants to spend on

hydrogen to increase renewable energy's share of the energy market

from 1-2 percent to 25, 35, or even 50 percent in the same time

frame.

 

Not only will a hydrogen economy do little to expand renewable

energy, it will increase pollution. Making hydrogen takes energy. We

are using a fuel that could be used directly to provide electricity

or mechnical power or heat to instead make hydrogen, which is then

used to make electricity. Back in 1993 William Hoagland, senior

project coordinator at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's

hydrogen program, prophetically told Time Magazine, " I can't see why

anyone would invest in additional equipment to make hydrogen rather

than simply putting the electricity on the grid. "

 

We can, for example, run vehicles on natural gas or generate

electricity using natural gas right now. Converting natural gas into

hydrogen and then hydrogen into electricity increases the amount of

greenhouse gases emitted.

 

There is another energy-related problem with hydrogen. It is the

lightest element, about eight times lighter than methane. Compacting

it for storage or transport is expensive and energy intensive. A

recent study by two Swiss engineers concludes, " We have to accept

that [hydrogen's] ... physical properties are incompatible with the

requirements of the energy market. Production, packaging, storage,

transfer and delivery of the gas ... are so energy consuming that

alternatives should be considered. "

 

The most compelling rationale for making hydrogen is that it is a way

to store energy. That could benefit renewable energy sources like

wind and sunlight that can't generate energy on demand. But batteries

and flywheels can store electricity directly. The all-electric

vehicle has not yet found a commercial market, but we should

acknowledge the rapid advances made in electric storage technologies

in the last few years.

 

Many people see the new hybrid vehicles as a bridge to a new type of

transportation system. I agree, but with a different twist. Toyota

and Honda are selling tens of thousands of cars that have small gas

engines and batteries. American automobile companies will soon join

them. Toyota and Honda and others are looking in the future to

substitute a hydrogen fuel cell for the gasoline engine. That work

should continue, but policymakers should also develop incentives and

regulations that channel engineering ingenuity into improving the

electric storage side of the hybrid system.

 

Currently, a Toyota Prius may get 5 percent of its overall energy

from its batteries and could only go a mile or so as a zero emission

vehicle. A second generation Prius might get 10 percent of its energy

from batteries and might have a range of 2-3 miles. Why not encourage

Toyota and Honda and others to increase the proportion of the energy

they use from the batteries?

 

We need to get beyond the glib, " we can run our cars on water, " news

bites and soberly assess the value of a massive national effort to

convert to a hydrogen economy. When we do so, I believe, we will

conclude that the hydrogen economy has serious, perhaps fatal

shortcomings.

 

David Morris is vice-president of the Institute for Local

Self-Reliance [ http://www.ilsr.org/ ].

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a message dated 2/28/03 12:47:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,

waltstoll writes:

 

> Comments anyone?

> Misty

> http://www..com

>

>

> A Hydrogen Economy Is a Bad Idea

>

 

Regardless, it is a step in the right direction...A step I never thought I'd

see in my lifetime.......*anything* is better than burning fossil

fuels....IMO.

 

As far as the problems go, yes....money has a way of making people come up

with solutions.....

 

The real fight should be to ensure that fossil fuels are *not* used in

creating the hydrogen. No more oil spills, no more strip mining...

 

Khepri

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...