Slashdot Mirror
Bringing the Hydrogen Economy Back to Reality
An anonymous reader writes "Popular Science has created a list of 9 myths and misconceptions about getting our future hydrogen economy into full swing. If you are hoping your next car purchase will be a hydrogen car, don't hold your breath. Car manufacturers must still make some significant breakthroughs before being ready for primetime, specifically longer lasting fuel cells and better hydrogen storage capabilities."
It's refreshing to see Robert Ballard speak candidly about the shortcomings of a technology he helped to develop. Usually, hype prevails.
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
after all, H2 is the lightest gas around. It'll dissipate immediately at a fueling station or wherever. Gasoline vapors, on the other hand, are heavier than air and tend to pool. That seems much more dangerous to me.
The article was also trying to make a point not just about the danger of leaks, but just of the shear quantity released. Hydrogen is a really small molecule and can be difficult to contain. Apparently, there could be some negative consequences if large amounts of it were to leak into the atmosphere.
Politicians push a technology that makes them look "green". The pledge of support is backed by a seemingly large pile of money (well, at least enough to fund the Iraq expedition for almost 10 days).
Scientists and engineers divide into a couple camps: those who warn about the technology's shortcomings (branded naysayers) and those who stand to profit from the research dollars (often working for the established industries).
The established industries such as the US auto manufacturers get to delay practical changes for a few years because the Next Big Thing That Will Save Us(tm) will be available Real Soon Now(tm).
Finally, the technology fails to live up to the hype giving the public one more reason to distrust scientists and engineers.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Big Oil would love a new market. Period. They're not intrinsically opposed to "green", they're indifferent to it. Make "green" profitable, and they'll be on it like white on rice. Make it MORE profitable, and they'll drop gasoline so fast your collective head will be spinning.
As to the carbon going somewhere. That's certainly true. It'll be CO2 if natural gas is cracked into H2 and other stuff. Doesn't actually have to be, but that's the way to bet (since it is currently the easiest, most profitable, way).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Propane is odorless too- so they add odor to it for consumer sales, thus we get our nice onion smell when there is a propane leak.
BTW- if large amounts of hydrogen were to leak into the atmosphere, you might get an explosion someplace, but far more likely is that it would rise into the Ozone layer creating oxygen and rain.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If fuel cells are still having problems, a decent alternative should be hybrid diesels.
Diesels are already very efficient. Hybrid diesels would be even more so. Esp if you have regenerative braking.
Interesting diesel options:
1) Bio-diesel (waste cooking oil, palm or soya oil).
2) diesel-water emulsions (e.g. Shell's Aquadiesel licensed from Gunnerman's A-55 fuels/Clean Fuels Tech).
I know this isn't sexy but I'm convinced that this is the real way out of greenhouse and oil problems:
E85
It's an 85%/15% ethanol-gas mix. Outfitting a car to use it is cheap. There are a couple problems with it.
1. You're still using oil from the ground.
2. It still makes CO2.
3. You've got to produce the ethanol.
Still you can:
1. just keep using oil. I know that's not popular but e85 effectively multiplies the efficiency by a factor of more than 5. Also, oil isn't going to run out in 10 years if you understand the concept of "proven reserves". Even if you believe in peak oil theory, it staves it off by a good long while.
2. a lot of the CO2 produced is fixed the previous growing season by the plants.
3. producing ethanol is a net energy gain since the lion's share of the energy comes from the sun in the first place. Still we currently don't produce nearly enough of it to roll it out nation wide. That's just a matter of making a market for it. The good folks at Oak Ridge national labs are working on engineering plants that grow faster and produce more material to break down into ethanol. They're also working on bacteria that can do the fermenting on more materials. (sorry, no link. Too lazy.)
It's not perfect but it's a damn sight better than H2 and it's available on a limited basis now. I can go fill up on it today if I want. Best of all in my mind, this could boost the agribusiness industry to a point where farm subsidies are done away with for good.
Blaze a trail to the New World
THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY CAN RUN ON RENEWABLE ENERGY
If any economy can, hydrogen fuel can. What's the alternative, exactly? An endless supply of non-renewable energy? That'd be a contradiction of terms, no?
MASS PRODUCTION WILL MAKE HYDROGEN CARS AFFORDABLE
Maybe this should be "more affordable" - and of course mass production will make them more affordable. What will really make hydrogen cars affordable though is the boundlessly rising cost of running fossil-fuel-burning vehicles.
A gallon of gasoline contains about 2,600 times the energy of a gallon of hydrogen
A gallon of hydrogen at what pressure? This statement is meaningless.
The most promising of these technologies is the gas-electric hybrid vehicle
Until we run out of gasoline, that is.
"If we had a wider and more diverse set of energy sources, we'd be more robust, more stable,"
Alright, this one I agree with!
If all our cars were hydrogen cars we wouldn't have to hold our breath.
Seattle has the largest fleet of hybrid diesel buses in the world, but transportation officials are finding that the expected fuel efficiency isn't there. It seems the regular diesel engine buses have a slightly better mpg performance while still having with very low emissions.
During a check on fuel efficiency in September, the hybrid buses (which are equipped with the regenerative braking system) were getting 3.75 mpg on average while the older model diesels were getting 3.8 mpg.
The article does go on to say, though, that this may be because the city uses the hybrid buses for longer routes where the diesel engine gets more use. Plus, stricter federal emission standards are affecting fuel efficiency.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
The oil industry has about as much say in how hydrogen is going to play as car companies have in the airline industry. The automakers might like to ban airplanes so everyone has to use a car, but it will never happen because public demand on the issue is just too damned strong. Hydrogen is the same way.
The problem with hydrogen is that it isn't cheaper then oil. Period. The day that changes is the day the oil industry is steam rolled. The energy market is deadly serious to all economies. Energy trumps everything, even the industries that supply it. Big mean oil might want to keep the world running on the black stuff until there is not a drop left, but they are the only ones, and they are only a whisper of a voice compared to all of the other industries and special interest groups that simply want cheap power. So, even if the system was so massively corrupt that an industry could snuff a competing industry with money, oil's paltry sum compared to the collective will of every single other industry still results in the cheaper energy source winning.
Power is the life blood of the economy. Automakers have a direct interest to see a fuel source that is cleaner and cheaper, thus avoiding having to build cars to meet stringent environmental standards, and in general encourage people to drive more cars. All other industries have a stake in this as well. If your industry uses any sort of transportation, then you want something cheaper then oil if it exists. Nothing has such a dramatic net effect on the economy like the price of oil.
My point is simple. Oil companies might not be clawing over each other to build a cheap and safe hydrogen economy, but everyone else is. When I say everyone, I mean EVERYONE. Any moderately sized corporation that has any technology that might be related hydrogen fuel cells and ever tries a few long shots has a hydrogen program of some sort in the works. Hell, I worked at a company that specialized in making the massive belts that go on a paper machine that was working on hydrogen fuel cells. Picture that: a company in a declining industry that specializes in making parts for paper machines had a project to try and improve hydrogen fuel cells, simply because they had a little expertise in fabric, and thought that perhaps a certain fabric could form the basis of a cell. They were not doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They just saw the massive amount of money that goes to first guy to replace oil and wanted a piece.
I personally wouldn't worry. If you know anything about hydrogen fuel cells, you know that there is a massive amount of work going into right now even as we speak. It might take a decade to get something that everyone agrees is good, but a decade is a very short amount of time.
- It currently produces only 1.34 BTU of ethanol for each BTU of fossil inputs. This means each gallon is about 75% fossil energy.
- The tax subsidy for ethanol is currently $1.90/gallon, or about $7.60/gallon of non-fossil energy. (And you thought petroleum was expensive!)
- Even if all the corn grown in the USA was converted to ethanol, it wouldn't feed our motor fuel needs.
Taxpayer funds currently devoted to ethanol subsidies should be immediately diverted to programs which actually reduce petroleum consumption, such as hybrids.Sustainability and energy independence essay