(Page 2 of 2)
But the news isn't all bad. For the same energy delivered, producing hydrogen from methane dumps about half as much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as burning fossil fuels does. That's largely because hydrogen-based fuel cells are more efficient than internal combustion engines. In addition, serious research programs are underway to find a way to sequester carbon dioxide, whether it comes from hydrogen production or any other process that burns fossil fuels. One cheap solution could be to bury it in depleted gas and oil wells. My pessimistic bet, though, is that sequestering will be expensive. Politicians will choose to dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and pay the hidden price of pollution, rather than ask the public to pay an up-front price at the pump.
Still, hydrogen is far from an ideal automobile fuel. Even in its densest form (liquid), hydrogen has only one-third as much energy per liter as gasoline. If stored as compressed gas at 300 atmospheres (a more practical option), it delivers less than one-fifth the energy per volume as gasoline. Such low energy density means that fuel storage would take up lots of room in a hydrogen-powered car-or, alternatively, a modest-sized fuel tank would severely restrict the vehicle's range between fill-ups. Technology being developed to allow higher pressures would make hydrogen cars more attractive.The known U.S. reserves of natural gas will be gone in a few decades, or sooner if we start using it for automobiles. The key assumption behind the push for a hydrogen economy appears to be the belief that there exist vast, undiscovered reserves of natural gas in the United States and around the world. But even if that belief proves wrong, we can always go back to making hydrogen from coal; we have enough of that for a century, if we don't mind open pit mines.
I believe that the hydrogen economy is inevitable. Apparently so do big investors, who are setting up port facilities for future importation of large quantities of liquefied natural gas.
I also believe that the hydrogen will be made by whatever method is cheapest. In the short run, we could revert to electrolysis, powered by electricity from nuclear plants. Right now nuclear energy is expensive, largely, I believe, because of regulations driven by the perceived risk of radioactivity. Yet I think that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere offers a much greater long-term threat to the environment and to health than do nuclear power plants. We experienced the dangers of nuclear power in Chernobyl. For the carbon-based economy, the equivalent of Chernobyl is not just global warming; it is war. We saw that in Iraq. So on balance, I prefer nuclear-produced to methane-produced hydrogen.
When solar-generated electricity becomes cheaper than natural gas or coal, we can leave the fossil fuels in the ground, and have the best of all worlds. Cheap solar is inevitable, and we will not have to plaster the state of California with solar cells to enjoy its benefits. In a square kilometer of sunlight there is are 1,000 megawatts of solar power-the equivalent of a large nuclear power plant. Even if only 10 or 20 percent of the sunlight's energy is extracted as electricity, the area of the solar cells will not be much larger than what we currently devote to nuclear, gas, or coal plants. Energy can be stored at night (and during cloudy days) in hydrogen. The solar future is coming.
Creating a hydrogen economy is good goal. But in the near term, barring a nuclear-power revival, the transition to hydrogen will probably mean a growing dependence on imported natural gas, and the continued pollution of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide. Despite President Bush's optimism, the first cars of today's children are highly unlikely to be powered by hydrogen that was cleanly produced. But maybe the cars of their children will be. And in the long term, our switch to hydrogen could ease the transition to a solar-powered economy.
... -- to say that the hydrogen economy is wasteful or not efficient , is to buy into the fascist dogma of an elite fascist academic community ... -- but to actively promote and perpetrate such absurd notions , is to belong to such a corrupt and trash thinking bunch of buffoons ... -- forgive mii , but the negative labeling is most apropos , simply due to the fact that real and good academics don ' t twist the truth around , in order to justify a perspective that supports destructive big oil interests ...
... -- the glib use of the catch phrase that hydrogen isn ' t a fuel solution , it has to come from some where , has been dreamed up in a rand think tank session , and carefully planted , so as to give the impression that it actually undermines the hydrogen economy agenda ... -- well ; [ yes well , well , well ] , so does oil , and to not compare the amount of energy needed to produce oil to that of producing liquid hydrogen , is like every academic who made that inaccurate comparison failing a simple analogy comparison in a college gre examination ...
.. -- if wii compare the total amount of time and resources spent exploring , drilling , extracting , transporting , refining , and delivering oil , in relation to putting a huge steam turbine near to a hawaiian volcano fissure on the sea , and liquefying the hydrogen ON SITE for transport ... -- there is no comparison , wii have NO EXPLORATION , NO DRILLING , NO EXTRACTION NO REFINING ; ; ; desalination , electrolysis , and liquefaction are preformed with a FREE non energy use once the plants are constructed ...
... -- the drilling , extraction and refining of oil are continuous heavy expenditures of energy , not to mention the enormous loss of energy for the refining of oil into the final petrochemical products ...
... -- once the steam turbine , desalination , electrolysis and liquefaction plants are constructed , the production of liquid hydrogen is energy free , and the entire process is environmentally friendly ... -- there is no continual drain on resources , never any environmental danger , and the liquid hydrogen is ready for use AS IT LEAVES THE PRODUCTION SITE ...
... -- and finally , the construction of these hydrogen economy niches , is good for the construction sector , creates a permanent source of environmentally safe FREE ENERGY , and at the same time a PERMANENT FREE SOURCE OF POTABLE EFFICIENTLY TRANSPORTABLE WATER ... -- and that sadly enough , is why the elite trash of the world does not want a hydrogen economy , because it means THE END of that elites control of the planet , and the end of deserts , the end of poverty , the end of having to pay for free energy and water , the end of tyranny and feudal economic domination ...
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
aadfsd@live.com
4 Comments
Not so soon !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
First of all hydrogen is an energy source.the only eason that someone would say that it isnt is,because those persons havent been working on this very thing for as many years as we have.We can produce hydrogen from a cartrige at pressures exceeding 300,000psi and at temperatures up to 6,000deg.We can do this a lot cheaper than producing gasoline.Your comments are somewhat premature because of your lack of research on the subject.we already have the solution,all thats left to do is to convince all you nay-sayers that your expounding on a subject you really know nothing about.
Reply