Slashdot Mirror
A Hydrogen-Based Economy
Glog writes "Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall of Wired magazine have written an amazing article explaining why we need to transition to a hydrogen economy. Lots of info there, estimated cost and benefit ... very good solid reasoning for whatever floats your boat - national security, environment, super-duper-charged automobiles."
Here are some criticisms of the Hydrogen Economy...
9
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=1523
Hey, to all those who may either have kids or maybe you're a big kid yourself. I saw a cool science kit over at Frys that has a small refillable fuel cell used to run a little car included in the kit so you can have some fun learning about these guys. The fuel cell housing/wall itself is see-thru. It was $30 at the one here in Dallas. Not too bad. Might make a nice gift for the geek in your life.
An important thing to remember is that one big generator powered by hydrocarbons is much more efficiend than thousands of little ones (cars).
As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
Okay, maybe I missed something here, and I'm certainly no physics major, but from what I understand, hydrogen is created through the process of electrolysis, where it an oxygen are seperated from water. Also, from what I understand, this is a fairly energy-intensive process.
:-)
So, the question is, where are we going to get the energy to create the hydrogen? From... oil burning electricity generating plants? That would kind of defeat the purpose of switching to hydrogen for our cars, wouldn't it? In fact, it would require more electricity to generate the hyrdogen, which would in require more oil! And if folks say, "build more nuclear plants for electricity generation", I'm sure that's going to go over really well with the environmentalists in California. They'll just love that idea.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for hydrogen powered cars, but it seems like we're playing a shell game here, moving the oil from the cars to the electricity generation.
(If my assumptions about generation of hydrogen are wrong, someone please correct me!)
Why not skip the middle man and run our cars on natural gas? It is easier to convert to, safer, and many vehicles already do this. The US is the Saudia Arabia of natural gas
Free cell phone tracking
Hydrogen powered cars?
Dream on!
Let me break down the 5 areas that they say need R&D. I accept that these are the main problem areas. However, consider the alternative, of methanol powered fuel cells.
1. Solve the hydrogen fuel-tank problem.
However you do it, it's more difficult than storing gasoline. With methanol, it's eactly the same problem. Bush should devote $0 to this problem, and instead point to the current solutions for oil.
2. Encourage mass production of fuel cell vehicles.
This one is the same for methanol fuel cell vehicles. But wait! With methonal, the internal combustion engine is also a viable alternative. It's less efficent than a petrol IC engine, at current standard, but that's migigatable (I think petrol IC will probably slightly excel methanol IC). So, you can get methanol into vehicles sooner, meaning the total cost is spread over a longer time. The dual engine technology will assist adoption.
Additionally, methonal fuel cells, all solid state, are working in lab prototypes. This is about the same state as hydrogen fuel cells, so you'd not lose anything by going to methanol over hydrogen, and you'd gain a lot.
3. Convert the nation's fueling infrastructure to hydrogen.
Easier with methanol - it's the same type of problem as gasoline, so use the same type of solution - no real R&D needed here. That's a significant win over hydrogen, and equal with gasoline. The problem of supplying dual fuels is the same w.r.t. hydrogen or methanol.
4. Ramp up hydrogen production.
Methanol is more difficult to manufacture than hydrogen. But... there are two options. The first one, diret chemical synthesis from CO and H2 is very slightly more complex than direct hydrogen production. The other option, ferment it from celulose. All the waste wood / straw can be fermented into methanol. I don't know which would be cheaper - but I do know that it's not possible for one man to manufacture hydrogen on his ranch. A methanol still, on the other hand, is perfectly feasable. Spin that correctly, and there's capital there.
On the whole, however, it's 50/50 methanol / hydrogen.
5. Mount a public campaign to sell the hydrogen economy.
Hindenberg. Doesn't matter what actually happened, the helium industry spun it so well, that it's embeded in peoples minds that hydrogen is unsafe.
Methanol is methylated sprits. I don't think anyone thinks that's more dangerous than gasoline.
So, slight win for methanol, on the safty front.
Overall, I make that two noticable wins for methanol, two slight advantages, and one where it's 50/50.
Postscript: I use methanol, rather than ethanol because ethanol fuel cells are noticalby more difficult (== expensive), and producing methonal from biomass uses wood and other indigestable matter. Generating ethanol requires sugars, i.e. food.
What's more, even with the best insulation, as much as 4 percent of the liquid evaporates daily, creating pressure that can only be relieved by bleeding off the vapor. As a result, a car left at the airport for two weeks would lose half its fuel. Scientists need to find a way to eliminate or utilize this boil-off.
In the long run, automobile fuel cells themselves might be tied to the grid, making it possible for vehicles to feed power into the system rather than simply consume energy. That is, electrical meters might run backward some of the time. Futurist Amory Lovins envisions a peer-to-peer energy network in which spot power is distributed to users from the nearest source, be it a utility station or a station wagon.
It seems to me that the peer-to-peer grid idea could possibly take care of the car sitting for long periods of time - just burn off some of that extra energy to provide for a more immediate need and credit the energy back to you.
It still doesn't necessarily solve the problem of being "out of gas", but it sure seems more palatable.
Hydrogen is pie in the sky for now.
Instead, we should concentrate on a few other things first, which are immediately achievable, and ultimately more useful, in both the short and long term.
First, we need to get the sulfur out of diesel fuel. I'm taking this first because it's a no-brainer, and the current policy is too little, much too late. US standards for diesel are lower than Europe's, which is why we can't have their terrific, new-generation diesel cars. The average small car can, and does (over there) get 40+ mpg, without hybrid technology. Look at the Jetta Diesel -- it easily beats the Civic Hybrid, with no high-tech fancy stuff. The thing is, that's not even the best of the breed. Plus, if we get the sulfur out of the diesel, we can also clean up our industrial diesel engines considerably, which are the second biggest source of pollution in many areas.
Second, we do need that high-tech fancy stuff -- hybrid cars are terrific. Designs like the Insight/Civic are simply a better way to build a car, for a variety of reasons -- improved electrical systems, etc. The thing is, we need a better internal combustion motor to begin with -- and that's a new-generation diesel. A Civic Hybrid seems great at 45 mpg, but a hypothetical Jetta Diesel Hybrid would probably top 60 mpg. And if you must, SUVs with 40 mpg city, 30 mpg hwy are feasible too.
Third, we need to invest in smart power grids, and distributed power systems. This would allow to hook their solar systems, windmills, natural gas microturbines and fuel cells, and even hybrid cars into the grid, with the meter able to run backward. This would encourage development of clean power systems by eliminating the barrier to becoming a producer. It would drive down costs because of increased supply, and result in a more robust system. It's more efficient because it cuts transmision losses. Distributed power is better than a centralized model in a time of crisis -- what happens if someone bombs Hoover Dam, or other regional facility? Distributed power is better for national security. All it takes is some new switching gear and a computer network to control it all -- why are we not doing this?
Finally, we need to make our whole society more efficient by reducing car-dependent real estate development. It's ridiculous that people accept 50 mile commutes as normal. People should live, work, and shop within a very few miles. Unfortunately, lack of planning or lousy planning and zoning prevents this in many American cities The real solution to oil dependence is getting people out of their cars. Much has been written on this. Do a search on "new urbanism" if you wish.
So there you go -- clean diesel, diesel hybrid cars, and distributed power; plus land use, urban planning, and transportation reform. These are the solutions we have available to us *right now.* There are no huge technical problems to overcome. Hydrogen has huge technical considerations, and even bigger socio-political-economic ones. Sweeping revolution is fun to think about, but never works out in the real world. I say we take the baby steps first.
The SUV craze is about as ironic as you can get.
Here's why:
What do most Americans want in a car? Something that is big (which implies safety), roomy (which implies comfortable), and has a reasonable amount of power (which implies that it is easy to drive). Once upon a time, Americans bought large sedans to satisfy their auto buying needs. How many people owned full sized Chevy Impala's/Ford LTD's during the 1960's-1980's?
However, thanks to CAFE (Coporate Average Fuel Economy) Standards that our government has, you can no longer buy this type of car. To produce this car under CAFE standards, the automaker must produce a fair amount of smaller more fuel efficient cars, which most Americans hate and American auto makers tend to lose money on.
Therefore, in order to satisfy their customers and keep costs down, American auto makers have been trying to get around CAFE for years. One of the more humorous examples was the Cadillac Cimmarron, which was a Chevy Cavalier dressed up in Cadillac trim so Cadillac could make CAFE standards.
SUV's however, do not fall under the same CAFE standards as cars. They are considered trucks. CAFE standards are much lower for trucks than cars. To illustrate the absurdity of this law, a station wagon (car) which got 20 mpg would be worse under CAFE than an SUV that got 15mpg.
With SUV's American auto makers could give their customers big, roomy, cars and not run into trouble with the government. In other words, in trying to raise fuel economy standards, the government has only made them worse. If the market wants more fuel efficient cars, auto makers will provide them or suffer the consequences. If not, then the law hurts both customer and consumer.
(Not to mention that the lighter post CAFE cars are more dangerous. Because of this, and estimated 40,000 people have died because of CAFE. So I say, "No blood for oil - Repeal CAFE!")
Hmm, that liberal mind of yours is in overdrive, I see.
Perhaps the reason for war is not a business decision, not strictly for oil, not religous, and not idiological... Maybe, just maybe, the intelligence community has information that we are not privy too. Maybe, just maybe, the president has access to intelligence that we don't. Maybe, just maybe, it is not in the long-term interest of world peace to let a violent dictator thas has attacked Iran and Kuwait and killed thousands of its own citizens keep weapons of mass destruction.
The economic and, more importantly, political cost of this war is huge. Bush has taken a huge hit in the polls and the United States' political capital in the world is all but spent, and then some. If Bush is spending that economic and political capital, there's a reason. And, despite the beliefs of cynical liberals who believe Bush is just interested in oil, that's simply not the most logical or realistic answer.
Why everyone thinks they must go beyond the stated goals to determine the "real motive" behind the president is beyond me. Cynical liberals and anti-oil fanatics will say I'm naive when in reality they are simply being illogical. When you do the math and analyze the situation there is really only one explanation for all the effort being made on Iraq: Saddam is a dangerous dictator which intelligence information indicates is a threat to the world and to the United States. No other explanation, regardless of how cynical you are, makes sense.
Personally I'm not 100% in favor of the war. I'm not convinced that it's necessary right now. But the last 12 years have shown us that Iraq is NOT going to disarm--after 12 years what good is another week, month or year? If they wanted to disarm, they would have. Accepting that logic the question is WHEN do you take action? We have hundreds of thousands of troops over there now which is costing big money to support. The economy doesn't want to improve until the Iraq question is resolved. And it's going to start getting hot next month and will remain hot for a good 6 months.
My assumption--and I don't believe it's naive--is that the president has information that we don't. I believe he is right in that Iraq does not plan to disarm--this is based on the last 12 years as well as their (in)action since November when 1441 was passed. If we know something about their capabilities and they're not going to disarm, the time to do the work is now. So it's not too hot, we don't have to keep paying to keep troops deployed, the economy can start recovering immediately, and we can finally let France resume its typical importance in world affairs--zero.