Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogen Won't Save Our Economy
anaesthetica writes "Physorg.com is featuring a story asserting that hydrogen is economically infeasible as a replacement for our current energy sources. The premise is that isolating and converting hydrogen into a usable energy source takes up a great deal of energy to begin with, and that subsequently converting that hydrogen fuel into usable energy results in an overall efficiency of only about 25%. Apparently, the increasing scarcity of water is going to make hydrogen too costly and just as politicized as oil." From the article: "[Fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel's] overall energy analysis of a hydrogen economy demonstrates that high energy losses inevitably resulting from the laws of physics mean that a hydrogen economy will never make sense. The advantages of hydrogen praised by journalists (non-toxic, burns to water, abundance of hydrogen in the Universe, etc.) are misleading, because the production of hydrogen depends on the availability of energy and water, both of which are increasingly rare and may become political issues, as much as oil and natural gas are today."
As far as I can tell there is no scarcity of resources such as oil or gas - any supply constraints are put in place by OPEC to ensure the price of oil does not fall below an economic level. There is enough known resource to last for 200 years at current rates of consumption.
As for wind and sun as sources of electrical power, can I ask what we do when it is dark? Or there is no wind blowing? These are lovely ideas but if wind was any damn good the Dutch would still be using it, but they have stopped further wind turbine installations.
It is time for real engineers to make the decisions on how we proceed and not unqualified "experts" of which there appears to be an almost limitless resource.
It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
"There is a lot of money in the field now," he continues. "I think that it was a mistake to start with a 'Presidential Initiative' rather with a thorough analysis like this one. Huge sums of money were committed too soon, and now even good scientists prostitute themselves to obtain research money for their students or laboratories--otherwise, they risk being fired. But the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes."
Thanks for the "greenies" insult. After the "brownies" have done nothing but get us in Oil wars, and increased polution resulting in Asthma in kids -- you guys should be so proud.
I mean, just following the same-old path the former Robber Barons used, and blazing a trail of gluttony and entitlement to other's resources.
And as someone who would LIKE better air, and to get out of the Resource Wars before it's too late, I think there are a lot more Sensible "greenies" than you imagine in your Tree-Hugging fantasies. I know a lot of Hippies as well, who make good livings, have kids in school, and drive cars and don't do drugs -- oh wait, maybe they aren't hippies...! Maybe, people can be concerned about our future and energy issues, without being whinney morons -- is it possible?
Could I care about Children, AND not be a tree-hugger? Not that there is anything wrong with hugging trees, they are just a little rough, and not very cuddly. But they don't complain.
Other than the WalMart shoppers watching CNN or Fox, there are a lot of us Liberals who didn't think the Hydrogen nonsense that Bush proposed would work. Our first clue was that Bush, or just a Republican, proposed it. They would never propose a working solution to compete with current, pocket-lining industry. That was why we wasted so much time on Ethanol.
Look, Brazil is already doing this with sugar cane -- so stop pretending alternatives are unrealistic.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Fuck you.
You have some wierd view of the world, and offer no practical solutions.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on