TR Editors' blog

No Hydrogen Economy Needed: Existing Tech Could Replace Fossil Fuels

A new road map to decarbonization says we already have all the technology we need, we just need to spend more money to implement it.

Kevin Bullis 09/01/2006

  • 7 Comments

In our recent special report issue on energy and global warming ("It's Not Too Late," July/August 2006), we argued that existing technologies have the potential to dramatically reduce our production of greenhouse gases--we need not wait for the advanced technologies of a "hydrogen economy" or exotic new types of alternative energy.

Now researchers at City College of New York are proposing very much the same thing in a policy discussion published in the journal Science. In the September 1 issue, they say the combined use of alternative energies for which we already have reliable technology "could replace all fossil fuel power plants." These sources include concentrated solar thermal energy (in which heat from the sun creates steam to run generators), nuclear energy, geothermal and hydroelectric plants, wind energy, photovoltaic cells, and biomass.

They also claim that plug-in hybrid vehicles could replace 80 percent of the gasoline used in the United States. And they say the use of hydrogen for fuel is a bad idea in most cases--that using electricity directly in vehicles (stored in batteries) rather than to generate hydrogen is three times cheaper.

The catch? A huge price tag. Reducing total fossil-fuel use by 70 percent would cost $200 billion per year for 30 years, outlays the City College researchers hope could be collected through a tax on carbon-dioxide emissions of $50 per ton.

For example, that cost would come to more than a $300 tax per year on a Toyota Camry, based on figures from fueleconomy.gov

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

GerryWolff

1 Comment

  • 1993 Days Ago
  • 09/01/2006

TRANS-CSP report

A recent report ('TRANS-CSP') commissioned by the German Government shows in detail how Europe can generate all the electricity it needs, reduce CO2 emissions from electricity generation by 70% by the year 2050, and phase out nuclear power at the same time. Concentrating solar power is an important part of the energy mix proposed in the report.

The TRANS-CSP report can be downloaded from http://www.dlr.de/tt/trans-csp .

There is a press release at:

http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/press.htm .

Further information may be found at:

http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/index.htm

http://www.trecers.net/index.html

and

http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/renewable_energy/csp.htm .

Reply

kitk

76 Comments

  • 1989 Days Ago
  • 09/05/2006

reality bites

where do these pundits live? it sounds like a cardboard box of dreams. Germany eliminated most of its nuclear power to satisfy old Soviet era popagandists and leftists, but needs more and more power to run these utopian demands. out in my western states of America, there is yet NO alternative to gasoline, in part because we do NOT live cramped in populous villages where walking is faster than driving a mile or so. there are NO handy high-power outlets for recharging every couple of hills. most pundits plan for their imagined neighborhood, not reality.

Reply

mkogrady

425 Comments

  • 1989 Days Ago
  • 09/05/2006

Technology and Energy

It seems to me that some type of "FDR-Like" New Deal Program has to be initiated to jump start these ideas. The amount of money is insignifant over the long haul, so it makes sense to get started. Senator Luger outlined a pretty interesting Energy policy last week in Indiana, so at lease some Republicans are starting to wake up. For the most part - anything that introduces alternative power solutions disrupts the norm (petroleum) business model will be met with huge resistance and Big Oil will fight to the death to stay alive. However, as disruptive as this may seem on the surface - it's only disruptive TILL it becomes the norm. The technologies mentioned in the article/blog as well as other sources have my support!

As for a final comment: There's no mention about using resources more wisely. Make our homes and cars more efficient, use the Internet more effectivelyt and mandate Telecommuting. As for Carbon Emssions taxes - you can "sell" emmisions already, but the going rate is somewhere near $4/ton. It needs to be much more agressive beforee companies start paying attention!

Reply

Braxton

4 Comments

  • 1987 Days Ago
  • 09/07/2006

Cut cost

Change the laws to let mom and pop opperations convert used cars (VW's small MB's, Small trucks) into electrics without the regulations of car companies.

If someone is looking at a $1,000 USD to $3,000 engine and transmission issue, they may choose to convert it to electric as an errand car.

But get the goverment out of people's way if they want to build them as a side business.

Reply

Braxton

4 Comments

  • 1987 Days Ago
  • 09/07/2006

Oxygen

If you split methane you get greenhouse gases and your not really diversifying your fuels. If you split water which is harder, find something valuable to do with the Oxygen.

Before cars, gasoline was burned as a byproduct.

Don't let oxygen be wasted, the right use for oxygen would make hydrogen use workable.

Maybe someone comes periodicly and drains your oxygen for a fee?

Maybe you get rid of the mechanical complexity of superchargers and tubochargers and put your oxygen in your gasoline or diesel car?

Maybe your city pays you to flush the oxygen through the sewer to speed up sewage decomposition?

Maybe you pump it into a lake like a fishtank bubler and clean polution out of the lake?

But don't waste it!

Reply

Guest (jbailo)

  • 1986 Days Ago
  • 09/08/2006

Not gonna happen


The thing is, technologies become really efficient and really well made -- just before they get replaced with a new paradigm.

So, yeah, we could spend all that money.  Or we could start ground up with a carrying medium, hydrogen, that is the most energy dense on the planet.

Reply

Ecowriter

7 Comments

  • 1886 Days Ago
  • 12/17/2006

Re: Not gonna happen

I agree.  I'm always amazed at how easy it is to convince people that there is a "missile gap" or "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," and that we HAVE to spend trillions on a war, but when you say that there is an EDUCATION gap, or a "hazardous waste disposal gap," or an "energy gap" between what we use and what we'll have, everybody just yawns and goes back to their lives.

The cool thing about hydrogen, particularly hydrogen on demand systems, is that they can capture people's imagination.  You can show them something like Ecotality's hydratus, and they get excited about it, especially when you tell them they can keep their lifestyle and drive a vehicle someday that produces little more than water as a waste product.  Who wouldn't like that?

Lisa

Reply

About

Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.

Subscribe to the TR Editors' blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement