Hydrogen Economy? Not In The Near Future
The following is from a study by E. Gerald Meyer, Arts and Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY. He referred to it as the ‘good, bad and the ugly’ of hydrogen technology. Much has been written about the “hydrogen economy” with the theme that by substituting hydrogen for gasoline the nation can reduce its dependence on foreign oil, and have a pollution free transportation fuel. That is “the good”. However, the hydrogen must be transported, distributed and stored with safety. Also, it must be utilized in a vehicle either by a combustion system or by a fuel cell system. The former can perhaps be devised without too much difficulty but the latter poses many problems. Fuel cells currently lack the needed reliability, the stability and the energy output. In addition the cost of the fuel cell system far exceeds that of the present gasoline system. That is “the bad”. Hydrogen production is “the ugly”. The current level of 9 tons/yr must be increased eighteenfold to meet current demand, which increases by 4% annually. Hydrogen, not a renewable energy source, is a secondary energy type as is electricity. It must be produced by a primary energy type. In addition, hydrogen requires a hydrogen-containing substrate of which there are two types: the hydrocarbons and “hydrooxygen” (water). The former produce CO2 in addition to hydrogen as does direct use of fossil fuels. Water requires either thermal dissociation or electolysis with the primary energy of choice for either being nuclear energy. Electrolyis might be accomplished with solar energy but the quantities needed mitigate against this. Thus with so many problems to solve, the hydrogen economy is at least thirty years in the future.
I realize that there are a large number of people who disagree with what I have put forth here, but remember, hydrogen is not a renewable energy source as I stated earlier. This in and of itself should lead us to proceed with caution with regard to hydrogen. We are reeling from the damage fossil fuels have done to our environment. We have almost a moral duty to pursue renewables like wind and solar power. Please read this piece and give it serious thought, I’m sure you will come to a similar conclusion. That’s my take on the subject, leave a comment and we’ll print it even if you don’t agree. See you around the galaxy..:
Tags: electricity, fuel cell, hydrogen, renewable energy resource
August 13th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Yes, many people disagree with what you’ve written here because much of it is not correct. I think you would benefit from doing some additional research on the National Hydrogen Association’s website (www.HydrogenAssociation.org).
Here are some examples:
+ The current level of hydrogen production is not 9 tons/year. It’s between 9 and 10 MILLION tons each year.
+ Nuclear energy is not the only source of energy the industry is looking to use to produce hydrogen. It’s the mix of ways to make hydrogen that’s so beneficial. And solar is an important part of the picture
+ Unlike your suggestion, we don’t have to choose hydrogen over wind and solar. In fact they need to work together. Wind and solar need a storage medium like hydrogen to deal with their intermittent nature and hydrogen needs wind and solar for production.
+ Fuel cells do not lack stability or energy output. They reliably produce electricity with no combustion. Plus, it’s their very reliability, stability and the vast amount of energy they can put out efficiently and with zero emissions from the fuel cells that is making them so attractive. They’re being used by State Police offices, hospitals, cell phone companies and others to use them for back-up power in case of an emergency.
Hydrogen has much more to offer than you lead readers to believe. A deeper look will reveal volumes of opportunities to use hydrogen in conjunction with many forms of renewable and traditional energy that will enhance our access to energy and help to improve the environment.
August 27th, 2009 at 3:30 am
ykokijetuto…
Myspace Default Emo …