iPhone 3GS from AT&T. Free ShippingWhere's my hydrogen?
When I was in elementary school back in the early 1960s, nuclear energy was going to be the Greatest Thing Ever. Electricity was going to be so inexpensive that electric meters would be a thing of the past. Nuclear-powered cars would run for a year on a pellet of fuel the size of a vitamin pill. Nuclear energy would power ships, aircraft, and just about everything.
Right...With the exception of military ships--submarines and aircraft carriers--nuclear transportation has been a complete washout. Since the Three Mile Island disaster 30 years ago, nuclear power has been a bad word in the U.S., although that may change, and may have to change, in the future. Nuclear hype could be seen as one of the earliest recorded instances of vaporware.
But now we have hydrogen. The most common element in the universe. Hydrogen promises limitless clean energy. No more dependence on foreign oil. Maybe I'm an old cynic, but the hype is starting to sound familiar.
I found this article while perusing the Net earlier today.
It's an excellent article, and has many good points. Where is the hydrogen fuel coming from? Hydrogen may be the most common element in the universe, but here on planet Earth, it's locked up in, mostly, hydrocarbons--you know, like oil and natural gas. Why spend energy refining it out of natural gas when we could run cars on natural gas? Hydrogen is also a component of water, but so far, it takes more energy to liberate it from water than can be obtained from that hydrogen. Fuel cells, as currently developed, require platinum. There is a reason that platinum is expensive--there isn't much of it, at least readily available. And there is little, if any, platinum here in the U.S. Are we merely trading foreign oil for foreign platinum? (and this argument also works for the lithium for lithium ion batteries.)
High energy-density, fast-recharge batteries may be more viable than hydrogen. The necessary electric infrastructure is already mostly in place; the same can't be said of any hydrogen infrastructure--which wouldn't necessarily be analogous to the current petroleum infrastructure. Small, powerful, quickly-rechargeable batteries would be good for more than transportation. How many battery-powered devices do you have?
Nuclear power plants are presently taking multiple billions of dollars off Big Oil and Gas's table, every week. Perhaps one of the things he heard in elementary school was a prophetic worry that this would not happen without fuss.
--- G.R.L. Cowan ('How fire can be tamed')
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan
First of all, Hydrogen is just ONE solution of many and no alternative should be viewed as a silver bullet.. there is none. It will take long, slow incremental work to wean us off of it, just as it has taken 100 years to get to the dependence and infrastructure buildup we have today. Any alternative will take LOTS of infrastructure work, but the red-herring argument against it is cost and time. It will take lots of cost, but can be spread over time. Consider how much we spend as a nation just to defend and accomdate oil.
Author poses "why extract H2 from nat gas when you can run cars on it directly"? True, and we should run more cars on it, just like the Honda Civic GX proves today, and all the heavy duty buses and trucks do. Thank DOE for turning it's back on it. However, the EFFICIENCY of the internal combustion engines is 18% at best, and fuel cell vehicles like the Equinox and Honda Clarity is over 60%. So "well to wheels" the CO2 reduction, is 55~65% with a fuel cell car using natural gas extracted hydrogen. Use biogas or solar electricity and it approaches zero CO2. Taking from water is less efficient, but the enery input for each gallon of gasoline is even worse... no one talks about that. Plus we directly lose lives at war over oil, hydrogen will always be domestic fuel. You make it where you need it. (remember abundance?)
Platimun issue is another red-herring.. this author (and many like him) should do his homework and know better. Platinum loading per fuel cell is approaching the same as a conventional car catalyic converter, AND can be recycled...used again. The "foreign oil for platinum" argument defies logic. Oil use is CONSTANT per car, platinum is one-time per car... again think your car's catalyic converter.
Finally, comparing "how many electronic devices.." to cars is the HUGE flaw government will face as a day of recconing soon. Batteries used under full charge / discharge cycles will NOT last more than 3 ~ 5 years. Same argument using elec devices like cell phones, laptops etc. How long do THOSE batteries last? I'm lucky to make it 2 years. So for a car to go over 80 mph and over 200 mile will require 1000 lb's of batteries. Fuel cell cars have reduced the stack and powertrain and fuel storage to the same weight as a V-6 powertrain. Batteries alone far exceed the same size and weight.
To think batteries are "the answer" will only lead to cynicism and disappointment.. once again. Remember, the U.S (California) tried this once 12 years ago. There was no conspiracy, simply put the batteries were 1000 lbs, lasted 3 ~ 4 years, cost over $20,000 to replace and drover the car 130 miles UNTIL THEY STOPPED, then took 5+ hours to recharge. Today, the batteries will weigh 1000 lbs, will last 4 ~ 6 years, will cost $20,000 to replace and drive the car 200 miles, and take 4 hours to recharge. So progress has been made, but likely not enough.
So before taking shots at fuel cell cars, look at the alternatives with the same critical eye and the truth will be obvious.
Natural gas vehicles? Yes. Hybrids? Yes. Ethanol cars (using cellulostic not corn)? Yes. Small, lightweight batttery cars? Yes. Large, full function and range fuel cell cars with 5 minute refueling? Yes. To think batteries are the end-all solution is naive.