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.
This hydrogen pollution especially occurs when the hydrogen is mixed in a 2:1 ratio with oxygen.
Right.
KARMA TAG! You're it.
Does this mean we need an alternative fuel for an alternative fuel?
I was under the impression that the "hydrogen-based economy" would actually transport its energy around in a more easily handled form, e.g. methanol which can be trucked around and handled more easily than pure hydrogen.
To me, this paper appears to be saying: "If the hydrogen economy is based around this arbitrary and unworkable assumption we made, bad things would happen!" Well, okay...
In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
The greater the size of our population grows, the less buffer we will have between us and the environment. The greater our numbers climb into the billions and finally trillions, the greater the effects our slightest alteration to the environment will create. One person with a campfire is nothing, 100 million people with campfires and you start to get some serious pollution. One person hiking through the woods is nothing, thousands of people visiting a national forest every year is like throwing a 40,000 person concert there.
Its our numbers, not the action that destroys our environment.
No matter what we do, we will pollute and destroy.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
That's only one problem with the future "hydrogen economy".
Sure, hydrogen is in abundance, in outer space. Who's going to go get it?
What's the major source for hydrogen right now? Natural Gas. What's the major byproduct of extracting hydrogen from Natural Gas? Carbon Dioxide.
Sure, you can do electrolysis. Unfortunately, you need a lot of electricity to do that. Until nuclear power becomes popular again, there's not enough capacity in our power infrastructure. Not to mention that, in the US, most power is generated from coal.
Have you seen the price of Natural Gas lately?
It will be interesting to watch how we overcome these hurdles.
It is indeed very hard to prevent hydrogen leaks (the small molecule goes straight through even slightly porous metal) and it is difficult to detect, except when you get up to a couple of percent when a very small spark can cause a very interesting experience (like the roof being embedded in the car park.) On the other hand, that's the reason why a lot of work has to go into preventing gross leaks.
The same problem existed with the original town gas, which was practically odorless (CO + hydrogen + nitrogen) and of course the solution was to put in an odorous tracer gas. I am sure that with modern sensor technology a suitable tracer could be found that would be detectable in even minute quantities
Given that in the past we've been cavalier about low BP compounds and their ill effects - benzene in gas, CFCs, - it would be really good if this time governments and environmental scientists got their act together in advance. Leakage is not a reason not to use hydrogen, any more than the possibility of a leak is a reason not to put in plumbing. It's just a potential problem to be prevented.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Also, I've read in paper-only publications that hydrogen isn't as feasible as alcohol-only fuels--a fuel cartridge as small as an inkjet printer cartridge such as the ones that fit in the Canon BCI-21 print head can power a cell phone for a month or more using alcohol--so maybe studies like this will push more toward the alcohol alternative, which will actually be cheaper to convert to since most infrastructure is already equipped for the distribution of liquid fuels.
Can't we have a radiation shield for the Earth which is a little more reliable? A few CFCs, a little hydrogen, and it's disappearing all over the place. Bad design. Someone should have considered these possibilities before installing it. If I installed a firewall which was this delicate, I'd be canned.
Of course, IPv6 will probably fix all this.
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!
Still, it has a major advantage in the fact that it is commercially viable to burn oil in a power plant with sophisticated scrubbing equipment to minimize the pollution output. A plant generating hydrogen to power 100,000 cars will not produce as much pollution as 100,000 cars will. EPA regulations are much easier to enforce on a couple of thousand power plants than on a couple hundred million cars. You also decouple energy use from energy production - which means that if a more efficient system for producing energy is discovered you can switch to it easily without rendering obsolete every car that exists.
For the short term hybrid vehicles are definitely the solution - they don't require any infrastrucutre and reduce pollution and oil use immediately. For the longer term you need a system that can run at high power for extended periods of time if you want to use it in cars. Hydrogen is probably your best bet. How you make the hydrogen is up to you... Eventually it might be made using solar power, but for now you are still helping the environment even if the hydrogen is made by burning coal...