Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

Is the Hydrogen Age Just Around the Corner?

By Jerry Brown and Rinaldo Brutoco and James Cusumano, Ode. Posted December 28, 2007.


Hydrogen fuel cells will never be a practical source of power, right? Wrong. The technology is set to take off sooner than you think.
Advertisement

You may think hydrogen power is some futuristic fantasy, fit only for science-fiction writers. Or, at best, you might consider it a promising technology that won't be ready for prime time for another 40 to 50 years. If so, think again. In a special edition on "Best Inventions 2006," Time magazine praises the decision by Shanghai-based Horizon Fuel Cell Technologies "to design and market the H-racer, a 6-inch-long toy car that does what Detroit still can't. It runs on hydrogen extracted from plain tap water, using the solar-powered hydrogen station."

Hydrogen vehicles are not mere toys. More than 500 are on the road today. A BMW prototype with a hydrogen internal-combustion engine attained a top speed of 186 miles an hour. Mazda, Ford, Honda and GM are developing a variety of hydrogen-powered engines. Perhaps most exciting, Honda is now powering zero-emission vehicles with hydrogen derived from tap water in small stationary units that drivers can keep in their garages.

We believe the rapid pace of invention, testing and commercialization of fuel-cell technologies is a strong sign that we are entering the early stages of a hydrogen revolution. Instead of waiting half a century as critics suggest, the large-scale production of hydrogen fuel-cell cars could begin very soon. We have come to a crossroads where a single, courageous decision by a few world leaders could launch a new era of progress. That decision is, of course, to shift from our dependence on environmentally damaging fossil fuels to plentiful, renewable and clean-burning hydrogen fuel.

Not everyone sees the bright future of the hydrogen age. Some well-informed energy experts contend hydrogen will be viable only after 20 to 30 years of development. The respected environmental think tank Worldwatch Institute, cautions, "Despite recent public attention about the potential for a hydrogen economy, it could take decades to develop the infrastructure and vehicles required for a hydrogen-powered system." Joseph Romm, author of The Hype About Hydrogen, states that, "Hydrogen vehicles are unlikely to achieve even a 5 percent market share by 2030."

These predictions are needlessly pessimistic, based on common misconceptions about the cost, efficiency and technology of hydrogen. If we make hydrogen a national and international priority, as outlined below in a strategy for launching the hydrogen economy, we foresee the first affordable hydrogen fuel-cell cars coming to market starting between 2010 and 2012, and achieving 5 percent of the new car market share by 2020 or sooner.

Let's examine the critics' misconceptions about hydrogen.

Myth No. 1: A hydrogen industry needs to be built from scratch The production of hydrogen is already a large, mature industry, and the global hydrogen industry annually produces 50 million metric tons (50 billion kilograms) of hydrogen, worth about $150 billion. To put that into perspective, the current global output of pure hydrogen has the energy equivalence of 1.2 billion barrels of oil, or about a quarter of U.S. petroleum imports. The hydrogen industry is growing at 6 percent a year, thus doubling every 12 years. All this is happening without the incentives that would be provided by a growing fleet of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles in need of fuel. If the hydrogen industry can expand so quickly "below the radar," it will have no problem expanding quickly enough to fuel the needs of hydrogen fuel-cell cars in the future.

Myth No. 2: Hydrogen is too dangerous for common use This myth begins with the hydrogen-filled German zeppelin, the Hindenburg, which blew up at Lakehurst, New Jersey, in 1937. Recently that event was revisited in a detailed analysis by National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) scientist Addison Bain. He found that it was not the hydrogen that originally combusted, but the dirigible's outer coating, a highly flammable material similar to that used in rocket propellants. In reality, the hydrogen industry has had an excellent safety record for decades. In 30 years, liquefied hydrogen shipments have logged 33 billion miles. During all this time, no product losses or fires were reported. Gasoline, our automotive fuel of choice, is 22 times more explosive and has a dismal safety record in comparison.

Hydrogen, while flammable, is generally more easily managed than hydrocarbon fuels. If hydrogen is ignited, it burns with a clear flame and only one-tenth the radiant heat of a hydrocarbon fire. The heat that is produced tends to dissipate much more rapidly than heat from gasoline or oil fires. The bottom line is that hydrogen-safety critics should turn their fire against gasoline, and agitate for the rapid adoption of hydrogen on safety grounds alone! Myth No. 3: Hydrogen can't be distributed via existing pipelines The transportation of hydrogen, one of the most frequently mentioned concerns of critics, is easily accomplished through pipelines. Creating a new pipeline network to move hydrogen is unnecessary; we can use the one already in existence. Some existing pipelines are already hydrogen-ready. The others can easily be modified with existing technologies by adding polymer-composite liners, similar to the process used to renovate old sewer pipes. Using existing pipelines creates no additional safety concerns. Already, hydrogen-refueling stations are appearing in California, Florida and British Columbia. Other regions are sure to follow.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hydrogen cells

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hydrogen? Yes. Hydrogen fuel cell cars? No.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Dec 28, 2007 12:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The best use of the hydrogen fuel cell system is not for vehicles, but rather for use in balancing solar and wind inputs to the electricity grid. Solar and wind can supply a lot of power, but not on demand. Solar power can be used to turn water into hydrogen and oxygen during the day, and those two can be converted back to electricity at night as needed. This is best done in power plants connected to the electricity grid.

The best option for powering cars and trucks is going to be the electric motor powered by batteries. There, you charge the batteries directly from the grid - and new battery technology is popping up right now. Example: New Nanowire Battery Holds 10 Times The Charge Of Existing Ones, Dec 2007. That means a laptop could go for 20 hours instead of two - and a car might even be able to go 500-1000 miles on a full charge instead of just 50-100.

What about the charging time? Imagine battery stations in place of gas stations - you pull up, a crane pulls out your battery, and you get a fresh one, all in a few minutes. The old battery is recharged and sent on to a new customer. Some financial details to work out, but that seems to be the best system.

Hydrogen fuel cell cars are just not a good idea, and the technology has lagged and lagged. There is the onboard fuel storage problem, for one, and the fuel cell membranes need platinum catalysts and still wear out quickly - do you want to replace your fuel cell engine every 10 to 40 thousand miles? Electric cars are far better - the electric motor is robust and has been in constant development for over a century. No pie-in-the-sky fuel cell engineering required.

That doesn't mean that solar- and wind-powered hydrogen generation doesn't have many uses, beside the grid-balancing one. Hydrogen is used to make ammonia fertilizer, for example, and can even be used to convert carbon dioxide to methane. However, it's almost certainly going to be an industrial activity - not a home one.

Another decent option for cars is the alcohol-electric hybrid or plug-in hybrid - essentially a Prius that runs on ethanol instead of gasoline (the first one was patented in 1903, before Standard Oil shut down the farm-based ethanol industry by promoting Prohibition). However, if you're going to use ethanol or biodiesel, you had better make sure that the agricultural system that produces it doesn't use any fossil fuels or petrochemicals - organic, fossil-fuel free biofuels are the only sustainable option in that area.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» a hydrogen fuel cell is a battery Posted by: rafaeltoral
I wish the author is right...
Posted by: peter193710 on Dec 28, 2007 12:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but the main problems of hydrogen energy-
source and storage are not solved practically.
Peter Gluck

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hydrogen is a Hoax ... Posted by: mmckinl
The question is, will it come in time to get the US out of the Mideast, forever?
Posted by: xbj on Dec 28, 2007 1:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the question. If somehow it can come soon enough for that, then there is hope for the planet and the human race.

As long as there is an American nuclear armed satellite Zionist state called Israel in a hostile Mideast despite all the oil sheik dictators and murdering military Mushareff's we prop up elsewhere, the entire planet is in peril. Because an "Islamofascist" backpack nuke is a virtual certainity; it is only a matter of when. Whether it comes from a real terrorist, a patsy terrorist under orders from a fake leader like Bin Laden working for the BushCIA, or a duped patsy sacrificial mercenary, IT WILL COME. Let's face the truth; we EARNED it; it is our karma.

Why is this inevitable? Precisely because the CIA has done such a very good job of creating "Islamofascism" in the first place, and our own GOPNazis have done such a bang up tremendous job at creating Christofascism and fighting it "there"... into full fledged universal worldwide revolt.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hydrogen is the way to go...
Posted by: Pirate1 on Dec 28, 2007 1:54 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Imagine cars whose exhaust is just water vapor? If we don't build them, Japan, Germany and China will and once again this country will be known for outmoded car designs with mileage standards right out of the 1970s...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hydrogen is a Hoax ... Posted by: mmckinl
Straw Man Alert!
Posted by: improperly_sedated on Dec 28, 2007 3:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a truly shameless article, lining up the weakest arguments against hydrogen fuel and completely ignoring the real ones. So let's list a few more, and maybe some of you hydrogen boosters can tell me why they are myths.

1 - Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a storage medium. This means that the real question is whether or not it is a practical and efficient way of transmitting that energy from the power source, whatever that may be, to the wheels on our cars. This article, like most pro-hydrogen arguments, seems to imply that H2 is just sitting there like petroleum, waiting to have its energy released. If that were the case, maybe going to all this trouble to create the technology to use it would be worthwhile, but it is not the case. And incidentally, the existing hydrogen industry referred to in the article consists almost entirely of H2 derived from natural gas, not the electrolysis that would make it a potentially green technology.

2(a) - Hydrogen is difficult to store. H2 molecules are very very small, and seepage is a greater problem than with other gases. If stored in liquid form, losses to boil-off become an even greater problem than seepage. These are probably not insurmountable, but extreme measures would have to be taken. This would force us to choose between a very inefficient distribution system where large amounts of energy are lost into thin air, and a very expensive distribution system where every pipe and tank is costlier than what we are accustomed to.

2 (b) - Hydrogen is even more difficult to store in a compact and portable form. This either gives us an insufficient onboard fuel supply, or additional extreme measures compounded with the ones from part 2(a).

3 - Hydrogen is a greenhouse gas. Yes, you read that right. It's a greenhouse gas, it leaks like crazy, and it heads straight for the upper atmosphere when it gets loose.

I had more, but it's late, my brain is turning to jelly, and I'm going to bed. I'll check in tomorrow to see what the percentage of idiots is on this thread, but I'm not optimistic. Like a microcosm of our lemming civilization, I expect to find an illustration of just how doomed we really are.

(And did you notice the bios on the authors? Why would Exxon want us to adopt a new fuel whose main characteristic seems to be the requirement of an expensive, fixed distribution system? Wouldn't want us running our cars on batteries or alcohol. No, sir, that would not do.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Straw Man Alert! Posted by: Rod
» RE: Straw Man Alert! Posted by: IanA
» RE: Straw Man Alert! Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Straw Man Alert! Posted by: IanA
» RE: Straw Man Alert! Posted by: TheLimit
» RE: Straw Man Alert! Posted by: improperly_sedated
» RE: Straw Man Alert! Posted by: heid
» RE: Straw Man Alert! Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» RE: Straw Man Alert! Posted by: ematter
More Straw Man Alert
Posted by: PaulK on Dec 28, 2007 5:17 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogen explodes. I know people who have gotten injured in a hydrogen explosion in an indoor laboratory, and I know of a car that had a hydrogen explosion.

If hydrogen (or natural gas, for that matter) leaks out into an enclosed space, it builds up as it freely mixes with the ambient oxygen. Then a spark sets off a fueled-air bomb explosion.

Neither gasoline nor ethanol tends to explode in an accident, although they do burn fiercely. Electric batteries don't explode in an accident.

Hydrogen as a storage medium is nothing more than a direct competitor to the electric battery. Batteries work now. If I had a bit more money, I'd buy a Honda Civic Hybrid tomorrow and then pay a mechanic to switch it over to be a plug-in with extra batteries. With Toyota hybrids you can't see traffic in back of you with that deliberately funny but snobbish rear window. Otherwise Toyotas are good cars too.

The knock on batteries is that they don't recharge fast. No problem. Do with a real car what you would do with a toy race car -- put the old rechargeable batteries in the recharger and then put in a set of fresh batteries. Drive all you want!

So those are the basics. Hydrogen is another expensive, untested battery that explodes. Also, I'd rather ship my power across the country using high voltage DC wires from the wind fields than build hydrogen pipes, and I'd rather store massive amounts of electric power with pumped hydroelectric storage. Nice PR job, tho.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: More Straw Man Alert Posted by: IanA
» Hydrogen explosions. Posted by: heid
What?
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Dec 28, 2007 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A positive article on the future of energy on alternet? Wow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bad Logic
Posted by: kitten_thing on Dec 28, 2007 5:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Myth No. 1 the authors state If the hydrogen industry can expand so quickly "below the radar," it will have no problem expanding quickly enough to fuel the needs of hydrogen fuel-cell cars in the future.

This remarkable statement is a bald assertion of what engineers call "scalability", where small scale processes can be scaled up to be equally efficient large scale processes, with profitable economies of scale.

But no evidence for this whatsoever has been adduced, which would usually be a comprehensive study done as part of a larger feasibility study, and one would think that Exxon would have such figures ... embarrassing, perhaps?

As for the rest of the article, i found it bewildering how it skipped between natural gas extraction, fuel cells and electrolysis; conflating them as necessary to bolster arguments.

And as another critic noted, no mention of H2 storage?

Frankly, even putting aside the logical flaws, this article is just plain bad English.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about electric cars.....
Posted by: Smiggsy on Dec 28, 2007 6:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Did anybody see that documentary about the demise of the electric car trials in L.A a few years ago. That whole agenda of spending money on electric cars & then dismantling the system was very suspect. They destroyed almost every single vehicle & equipment after the initial trial. Nobody was allowed to purchase their cars. It seemed a huge waste of money, time & effort - quite surreal when considering the huge costly investment into research, development & construction. It didn't make any sense whatsoever.

What I do agree is that it had more to with the petrochemical corps realizing they may lose their mighty power over all of us at the pump.

I suppose anything noble like cheap motive power & clean air for everyone just doesn't make enough money. I would be very suspect of the hydrogen cell car.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

thoughtcriminal is right...
Posted by: kenkrug on Dec 28, 2007 6:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogen is a clean-burning, very efficient fuel, and new, clean forms of its development and production should be continued and pursued.

However, it is not the magic bullet that will ween our transportation fleet from the fossil fuel teat. We need to aim higher.

The process of extracting 1 kg of hydrogen from water expends more energy than said 1 kg of hydrogen provides when consumed. The way the production technology works now, it does not save any energy on the macro-scale.

The better option is electric. The technology already exists, and it is much more efficient. And there are a dozen ways to generate electricity that don't involve extracting something from the earth and burning it.

Hydrogen is an excellent option for use in large trucks and buses, (along with high-power military vehicles), which require more power than existing electric technology can provide. And this should be pursued, exactly as the authors outline.

But for the rest of us, we need to think outside of the combustion chamber.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

forget about cars
Posted by: astralman on Dec 28, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. you need energy (oil, gas, or other power generating source) to produce hydrogen, energy which we need for other things such as electricity, or the production of goods such as medicine, solar panels etc.
2. life isn't about cars! increase public transportation, walk, bike, pogo, whatever.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: forget about cars Posted by: IanA
» RE: forget about cars Posted by: mmckinl
An Industry Solution
Posted by: craigandrew on Dec 28, 2007 7:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogen is an industry solution, since only an industry can ever be able to provide a steady supply of hydrogen. Eventually we will simply replace being slaves to the oil industry with being slaves to the hydrogen industry.

If we wait for an industry solution, then we are accepting slavery. If we pursue individual solutions - including modifying our behavior - we solve the actual problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hydrogen is Fun
Posted by: lc on Dec 28, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I make my own hydrogen by use of a kind of battery box with steel plates and a current of 20 to 25 amps. Water and a acid solution (I can't find the jar with the name of the chemical; sorry but it is common to order) release hydrogen which is sucked into my engine air intake hose. The H/O is not a fuel and does not go into the fuel line. The H/O are gases that inject an added boast into outside air being pulled into the carburetor. The hydrogen and oxygen separated and released from water gives me 25% increased mileage and more hp.
Here is how it works: the added oxygen is like a furnace being supercharged with air to make steel. For every oxygen atom there are two hydrogen atoms that really add a bang to the explosion.
For Fun, I capture hydrogen bubbles by blowing the hose into a bottle of soapy water to make bubbles. Then I catch the bubbles with a spoon, put them in my palm and light them with a lighter. Big bang, no heat and no harm. I did this at an environmental fair and had children hold the hydrogen bubbles and light them in the palm of their hands. Freaked out the teachers but the kids loved it. I then backed the crowd about 20 feet away from me. I then stuck the lighter into the bottle (peanut butter, plastic just big enough to get my fingers and lighter in and only a couples inches of bubbles floating above the water) with a load of hydrogen bubbles and made a bang so loud that the authorities rushed over looking for a bomb. The second time I did it they made me stop. The only effect on me sticking my lighter into a bottle of hydrogen bubbles was the loud noise which made my hears ring for a long time.
Yes it takes electricity/energy produced by the alternator/generator but the little gas needed to run the generator to separate h2o into h and o is nothing compared to the added value a little o and h makes to the explosion process in the cylinders. Added plus: my engine runs cooler because the hydrogen is not a hot explosion like gasoline.
Anyone can use this technology now and the whole country could convert now without converting infrastructure. Hydrogen is not the silver bullet but it is one big shotgun blast at the oil industry while at the same time helping oil to continue.
BIG ADDED BONUS: My tail pipe emissions from a v8 Ford 1989 van are really bad and noticeable. When the h and o gas get to the engine a minute or so after startup the engine smooths out and runs better and the choking fumes can not be seen and smell is so little that you can actually breath next to the tail pipe whereas if I unhook the h/o hose, the tail pipe emissions will drive you 6 feet away.
I saw an old farmer make h from a battery in his barn to run his engine on a 60 Minutes documentary back in the early 70's and expected this technology the next year. It never happened because no business can make any money on it. Too much liability fear over hydrogen prevents insurance from installing and servicing the equipment.
IM
Belteshazzar

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Libertarian party position.
Posted by: Lauren on Dec 28, 2007 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why I can't even think about taking the Libertarians seriously, right from their own party web site. The official blog of the Libertarian Party, July 27, 2007

In the complicated global warming debate, one thing is certain: For every scientist that says global warming is real, there is another that flatly denies a human impact. It is rather frightening how an influential global movement can be based upon something as unproven as global warming.

That is just dumb, making me think the Libertarian party is made up of businessmen who haven't got a clue about how to understand basic math or science. Wow, just wow.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why hasn't anyone mentioned
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Dec 28, 2007 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how the oil co's surreptitiously do everything they can to prevent alternative sources from being implemented?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why hasn't anyone mentioned Posted by: MyLeftFoot
Compressed air a better solution for mobile apps
Posted by: toppun on Dec 28, 2007 8:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article addresses many of the problems that hydrogen presents but it does not come up with answers. Hydrogen for stationary electrical production along to replace coal. Fuel cells? Maybe a long term answer but compressed air technologies

The MDI Air Car - The World�s Cleanest Car.

are compatible with current ICE. Minimum infrastructure needed at refueling stations. Zero emissions. Lower pressures to achieve comparable energy density. Zero emissions from current technologies--compressors is one of the most reliable mechanical devices there is.
No matter the replacement technology the ability to store electrical energy to reduce peaking will be an essential part of the mix. No significant discussion here. Puzzling out mobility is only one part of a much larger problem of reducing carbon emissions to virtually zero. Hydrogen is not a primary energy source only a refined storage media--the problem of emissions is the greatest challenge and that is highest priority for research and development.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

dareg
Posted by: dareg on Dec 28, 2007 8:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having been at the forefront of commercializing industrial and utility fuel cell power plants, where scale favors early adopters, I can agree with the writers' positive points on the potentials for fuel cell systems in vehicles. However, the infrastructure challenge is formidible as is the enormous impacts of ending internal combustion engine (ICE) dominance. Consider the elimination of gas stations as we know them, auto repair shops, parts suppliers, and ICE after-market businesses.

Getting back to industrial/utility fuel cell power plants, there's no more a conservative market than utilities. A megawatt-scale fuel cell system was demonstrated in 1996-7 at Santa Clara, California. Now 10 years later, the commercial fuel cell product line is just breaking through with sales of mainly 250KW sized versions even though 2.5 - 3MW models are available.

These fuel cells use natural gas, biogas and/or alcohol fuels, a more generally available suite of fuels than would be hydrogen. So, there remains plenty of time-compliant issues remaining before hydrogen becomes a common energy source for the general population. The NASA and military space programs are the major end-users of commodity hydrogen, a good start.

As several previous commenters note, hydrogen is a difficult commodity to store, seal and tranfer because of its molecular structure and propensity to embrittle contacting materials over time. Projecting these characteristics to wide-scale implementation will require a massive capital investment in infrastucture, including safety and handling systems in addition to fuel cell mass production manufacturing capabilities.

Having said all this, I am optimistic that hydrogen systems, especially as hybrid (fuel cell/battery) propulsion systems, are perfected for vehicular applications. Unfortunately, the timeline will not likely follow the 15 to 20 year horizon envisioned in the article.

There's no free ride here; displacing oil is mandatory for our security (dependancy on foreign sources)and economic health. But remember, we will shift away from one energy form (oil) to another (coal), to generate the electricity or methane-based gases for hydrogen production; but it is a start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tonight! Oilslick vs. Hydro
Posted by: audiodef on Dec 28, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only people who make claims about how this will not work are the people who financially benefit from the continuation of the Oil Regime. I have a suggestion for these people: get with the program. You can still make boat loads of money this way, and you will be assured that eventually, the money train will run out of gas on the Great Oil Line.

Oil: Very Finite Supply.

Water (and thus hydrogen): Dude, most of the flippin' planet is covered with it, often miles deep.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Tonight! Oilslick vs. Hydro Posted by: Cherenkovrad
» RE:Oilslick IS Hydro ! Posted by: mmckinl
Why not have both hydrogen and electric
Posted by: recj50 on Dec 28, 2007 9:55 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is not part of the problem today that we became too dependent on one source of energy in this country, OIL. As part of the learning process maybe we should develop two sources; hydrogen technology and electric batteries technology. Remember even with electic batteries for cars, you still need some means to recharge them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pros and cons
Posted by: willymack on Dec 28, 2007 10:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems by this article and the responses of its readers that hydrogen fuel cells are a good idea-BUT. A long list of disadvantages ensue. The fact of the matter is that if we don't make a start down this road, perfecting our techniques as we go, then it'll never happen, especially with the ferocious resistance from the coal, oil, and gas industries muddying the waters. The same goes with Universal (not-for-profit)Health Care, scuttling the Electoral College, a Balanced Budget Amendment, etc., etc. Since when has ANY policy or new technology begun in a perfect and finished form? We have to overcome the inertia of "business as usual" to move forward, and to hell with the usual vested interests. Let's make OURSELVES the vested interest for a change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 28, 2007 10:31 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogen is DOA for personal mobility once economics, safety and maintenance is factored. Stop re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not Titanic deck chairs. Posted by: heid
H2 does not exist naturally
Posted by: pauldd on Dec 28, 2007 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The authors mentioned individual solar units that create hydrogen from H2O but they do not address the fact that mass production requires a significant amount of electrical energy. So what do we do... burn fossil fuels to generate electricity used to split the H2O molecules. This is the way virtually all industrial hydrogen is produced. We still need to burn the carbon based fuels to make the hydrogen. This is the biggest hurdle to making a "clean" hydrogen economy and most advocates simply ignore it. The answer still falls to renewable energy technologies (solar, wind, etc.) as the only way to create clean electricity required to make hydrogen. Only then it may become a viable alternative energy storage medium.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There is a great solution: Posted by: channing
Techno-Fantasy Hydrogen Economy is Nothing but a Childish Dream
Posted by: Cherenkovrad on Dec 28, 2007 11:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There will not a be a hydrogen economy -- will not happen. It is only because America is the land of the scientifically illiterate that such ideas can gain traction. The hucksters who are selling this boondoggle are counting on the masses, and the people who finance them, being bereft of scientific acumen.

Then the gee whiz kids (all the people who watch Star Trek and drool over the latest techno-orgasm) line up to support the physically impossible just because they want the cool tech.

The problem is not oil vs. x fuel source, the problem is a finite earth with infinite desires. We currently have approximately 5 billion too many people on the planet due to the input of fossil sunlight i.e. oil, natural gas, coal. When those resources begin to tail off, which many have concluded is happening now, then we will see that the planet will not be able to support all those people. No amount of techno-fantasy will solve this problem. Tech is not energy. Tech cannot make land. It cannot make fresh water without increasing salinity elsewhere. It cannot restore a fished out ocean. It cannot stop the acidification of the oceans. Tech is the problem, not the solution.

As a species, we are doomed as long as we live in this land of corporate mediated techno-fantasy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Helps when you use facts
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Dec 28, 2007 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
==Myth No. 1: The production of hydrogen is already a large, mature industry, and the global hydrogen industry annually produces 50 million metric tons (50 billion kilograms) of hydrogen==
Almost all of which is created by stripping carbon atoms off of natural gas. Creating CO2 in the process.
Most of it's used for Oil Refining to seperate out the different fractions of oil, and seperately to remove impurities.

==Myth No. 2: The safety hazard of hydrogen isn't that bad because it doesn't readily explode==
While correct. Even if you put plain air inside a 10,000PSI tank, what you have is a bomb.
Much less a flammable gas.

==Myth No. 3: Hydrogen can't be distributed via existing pipelines==
Thats more like a fact than a myth.
Sure you could do comprehensive retrofits.
But thats not really "existing pipelines" if you've completely rebuilt the pipe.

==Myth No. 4: Because so much hype is being made, there's sure to be major economic progress==
You can't engineer your way around the laws of thermodynamics.

==Myth No. 5: Hydrogen is too expensive to compete with gasoline==
I wouldn't really say reformering hydrogen from natural gas is a step forward from existing Diesel cars, CNGs or Hybrids.
And it certainly can't compete at that price margin.
If you're talking electrolysis, we're talking $100/kg.
Then add in the fact that the fuel cell system itself is far too expensive.
And requires scarce raw materials like gold and platinum.
AND it also requires batteries. (Ironically most Hydrogen prototypes now are lithium ion hybrids)

_

Fact being, half of the FossilFuel/HydroCarbon business model is Hydrogen.
It's no suprise that this article comes from Exxon's former director of R&D.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When you have a hammer Posted by: TheLimit
BMW Hydrogen 7, worst car on the road
Posted by: GreyFlcn on Dec 28, 2007 11:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
==A BMW prototype with a hydrogen internal-combustion engine attained a top speed of 186 miles an hour.==

Which ideally should stay a prototype
The BMW Hydrogen 7 puts more strain on the environment than a heavy diesel truck.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No Magical Solutions
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Dec 28, 2007 1:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No one has mentioned the mining or really awful chemicals needed to build hydrogen fuel cells. As another poster said, let's dump cars altogether.

We need to insist that EVERYONE (this includes the rich and ruling class types) live near work and shopping. We should greatly expand public transit, which means major 24-hour subway systems in every city and large town, run public transit off local solar and wind power, and make bicycling much easier by removing private motor vehicles from enough streets to create sufficient bike routes.

There will be no magic technological fixes for environmental problems caused by humans consuming too much or consuming things we shouldn't be consuming. We need to give the Earth and all life on it equal consideration, and stop worshiping human death machines like cars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No Magical Solutions Posted by: improperly_sedated
Hydrogen is a Hoax on the American People !
Posted by: mmckinl on Dec 28, 2007 1:49 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hydrogen as currently produced from natural gas would be extremely inefficient and polluting. Make NO Mistake that when natural gas became too expensive even dirtier coal would be used for production.

Using natural gas for hydrogen would drive up heating and electricity for consumers to multiples of what it is now.

Hydrogen from wind, solar or other renewable for electrolysis is only 20% efficient. The electricity generated would be more wisely used for the electrical grid.

Be Fore-Warned ! The Hydrogen Economy as currently envisioned is a ploy by the Auto and Hydrocarbon industries to maintain their iron grip on consumers pocketbooks.

Much cheaper and far more efficient battery electric vehicles are coming soon with batteries that last 10 years and ranges of over 100 miles at a 120 mile per gallon equivalence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mmckinl, Posted by: channing
Bull
Posted by: sjk on Dec 28, 2007 3:23 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Every time I hear someone go off about the hydrogen future I feel like someone's trying to sucker me. Let's say you could solve the manufacturing problems and the general storage problems and create a cost effective vehicle - you still have NO DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM. To create a national hydrogen distribution system will take easily 60 years -- if everything goes really well. So, in a perfect world hydrogen is 100 - 200 years away from being practical.

Auto and oil companies love to hype hydrogen because they know it's not going to be around for a long long time, so they don't have to worry about change in their lifetimes. This allows them to fight against government regulation by saying:"Hydrogen will solve all your problems, just wait for it -- if you regulate us, you'll stop development of the 'magic fuel'". BULL. We need to combine alternative fuels with significantly higher CAFE standards. Automakers will adapt and grow. Afterall, how many went out of business when seatbelts became mandatory.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bull - Distribution Posted by: IanA
» RE: Bull - Distribution Posted by: mmckinl
The Honda FCX is available now.
Posted by: aethr on Dec 28, 2007 5:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Honda is leasing their FCX hydrogen fuel cell car in 2008. It's limited to southern California, to a large extent because that's where the only hydrogen filling stations are. How is it the author is not aware of this? More than that, how is it that all the commentors who are saying that hydrogen isn't realistic don't know that it's already being done?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hydrogen is just another battery
Posted by: solar on Dec 28, 2007 5:53 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And not a very good one at that. It makes far more sense to use higher density batteries charged with electricity from any number of sources than to waste billions building what amounts to a "new" battery infrastructure.

Please, let's at least stop calling hydrogen an energy "source", it isn't a source at all and it isn't even as practical as oil because it does not exist in nature except in combination with other elements. It takes energy to extract the hydrogen, more energy that will be regained by recombining hydrogen with oxygen to produce electricity and water.

I've been a renewable energy advocate for decades, designed and built efficient homes and home energy systems, and I'm sick to death of hearing about hydrogen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

markh
Posted by: markh99 on Dec 28, 2007 6:59 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am encouraged that many commenters understand the poor quality of the article. Hydrogen is not an energy source. A hydrogen car would be a smogless car but would only address our fossil fuel and greenhouse gas problems if fossil fuel was not used to make the hydrogen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another "Classy" Idea
Posted by: mreich on Dec 28, 2007 7:51 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to know where I can trade my rusted out '91 Chevy S-10 for one of these green wonders. Since I've just had my workweek cut back from 3.5 days a week to 2, I sure could use a break from these gas prices.

I am also wondering who is going to pay for the development of the hydrogen fuel infrastructure. Who has that kind of money? Could it be the American taxpayer? Nah...

Wait! I know who! Why, Exxon and BP of course! What are the odds that the same folks who control the fossil fuel will be controlling the hydrogen fuel? You know I'll just bet that the good folks at GM would be willing to help out too. They were instrumental in making sure that the antiquated electric trolleys in my hometown were replaced with modern gasoline powered buses. We could sure use their expertise.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wake The Flock Up, People
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 28, 2007 9:17 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JHK got it right a while back.

The Long Emergency is coming and it looks like we are a society in deep denial.
"The hydrogen economy is a fantasy. It is not going to happen. We may be able to run a very few things on hydrogen - but we are not going to replace the entire US automobile fleet with hydrogen fuel cell cars.
Nor will we replace the current car fleet with electric cars or natural gas cars. We're just going to use cars a lot less. Fewer trips. Cars will be a diminished presence in our lives.
Not to mention the political problem that kicks in when car ownership and driving becomes incrementally a more elite activity. The mass motoring society worked because it was so profoundly democratic. Practically anybody in America could participate, from the lowliest shlub mopping the floor at Pizza Hut to Bill Gates. What happens when it is no longer so democratic? And what is the tipping point at which it becomes a matter of political resentment: 12 percent? 23 percent? 38 percent?
Wind power and solar electric will not produce significant amounts of power within the context of the way we live now.
Ethanol and bio-deisel are a joke. They require more energy to produce than they give back. You know how you get ethanol: you produce massive amounts of corn using huge oil and gas 'inputs' of fertilizer and pesticide and then you use a lot more energy to turn the corn into ethanol. It's a joke.
No combination of alternative fuel systems currently known will allow us to run what we are running, the way we're running it, or even a substantial fraction of it.
The future is therefore telling us very loudly that we will have to change the way we live in this country. The implications are clear: we will have to downscale and re-scale virtually everything we do.
The downscaling of America is a tremendous and inescapable project. It is the master ecological project of our time. We will have to do it whether we like it or not. We are not prepared."

James Howard Kunstler

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Solar Deserts
Posted by: channing on Dec 28, 2007 9:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With 700 times the energy capacity needed for today's energy demands, the Sun is the unique supply that both the Earth and Humanity desire:

Here for 5 billion, here for 5 billion more.

Concentrated Solar Arrays located on 1/700th of the Earth's desert-footprint would produce 100% current demand. Desalinization and H2 production are by-products. Wind Islands, Geo-Thermal, and Wave/Tidal augment... Fossil Fuels