Slashdot Mirror
Widespread Use of Hydrogen May Hurt Ozone Layer
Saeger writes "The AP has a story about a CalTech study which has found that the Hydrogen Economy may deplete the ozone layer by 'as much as 8 percent' on the assumption that '10 percent to 20 percent of the hydrogen would leak from pipelines, storage facilities, processing plants and fuel cells in cars and at power plants.'" CalTech's press release has more information.
The Cal Tech study seems to be a little extreme:
Hydrogen has to be produced. Currently, most of it comes from fossil fuels in a process that releases CO2. Some if it comes from electrolosis, which requires energy which comes from sources like burning fossil fuels.
The only thing hydrogen would do in our current situation would be to move pollution from your car to a power plant.
Second, it's *extremely* explosive. The cost of leaking even a small part of the amount you're moving is death in a fiery inferno.
Actually, this statement is a little off. It is a common perception however. Gasoline is a far worse substance to handle or deal with than Hydrogen. Gasoline can stick to you, spill, and it can explode as well.
Ironically, the destruction of the Hindenburg, which is the famous example of the dangers of Hydrogen was not as bad as people imagine, the majority of the problem was that the skin of the ship was rocket fuel. The gas, while it was burning ferociously, can be seen to be floating up and away from the ship itself. The most interesting thing about the Hindenburg disaster is that only 35 of the 97 passengers died. If Hydrogen was a heavier than air gas, this would not have been the case.
Since Hydrogen rises very fast, if you have a leak, it immediately seeks to escape out into the air. Not so with gasoline, which will form a dangerous pool on the ground. Movies such as "Chain Reaction" (ARRRGHHH!!!) perpetuate the "risk" that hydrogen poses. Given the choice, being involved in a gasoline leak (pools on ground) or Hydrogen (rapidly floats up into sky, or celing in an enclosed environment) I would choose being around Hydrogen as I could hit the deck, and have the gas float up and away from me.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
The article briefly mentioned it, but Chrysler (and others?) are working on using NaBH4 to carry the hydrogen. The NaBH4 can be induced to yield its hydrogen, leaving borax, a common element in laundry soap. The borax can be recycled to produce more NaBH4 (or Tide, I guess), essentially acting as transportation vehicle for the hydrogen. I imagine NaBH4 has a lower energy density than fossil fuels, particularly gasoline, but it may be safer and easier to produce and ship around. IANACE (I Am Not a Chemical Engineer), of course.
If you love something, let it go. If it comes back to you, hump its leg.
The only thing hydrogen would do in our current situation would be to move pollution from your car to a power plant.
--------
Close, but there is another benefit to hydrogen that many people don't remember. There's lots of ways of producing the hydrogen needed for the cycle. Consider that a secondary problem, though. Fossil fuels are far from unlimited. The hydrogen fuel, though, excluding small leakages out of the atmosphere, is nearly limitless. Supply worries are nearly eliminated, once a stable production system can be put into place.
Granted, the proper production system is not in place yet. But as some other technologies (solar cells, wind turbines) that are less polluting improve, we would be able to move to those technologies for hydrogen production WITHOUT giving up the things that run off the hydrogen. Instead of replacing the whole system, you now only have to rework one part of it.
It's a very powerful idea when you stop and think about it. Right now, your statement is probably right. But, think about the consequences a little further down the road. THAT'S why hydrogen power is so attractive.
-Jellisky
is right here