Hydrogen economy looks out of reach
 

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/0410...041004-13.html

Hydrogen economy looks out of reach
Published online: 07 October 2004
http://www.nature.com/news/2004/0410...041004-13.html

Mark Peplow
US vehicles would require a million wind turbines, economists claim.

Converting every vehicle in the United States to hydrogen power would demand
so much electricity that the country would need enough wind turbines to
cover half of California or 1,000 extra nuclear power stations.

So concludes a British economist, whose calculation is intended to highlight
the difficulties of achieving a truly green hydrogen economy.

"This calculation is useful to make people realize what an enormous problem
we face," says Andrew Oswald, an economist from the University of Warwick.

The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

Most hydrogen is currently made from methane, in a process that releases
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Splitting water molecules with
electricity generates hydrogen - but the electricity is likely to have been
generated from fossil fuels.

Although this may shift urban pollution to out-of-town electricity plants,
it makes little difference to greenhouse-gas output. "Today, hydrogen is not
a clean, green fuel," says Oswald's brother Jim, an energy consultant who
assisted with the calculation. "You've got to ask: where did the hydrogen
come from?"

The only technology that can currently make large amounts of hydrogen
without using fossil fuels relies on renewable power sources or nuclear
energy, the Oswalds argue. Hydrogen will only mitigate global warming when a
clean source of the gas becomes available, they say.

Unpopular options

The duo considered the United Kingdom and the United States. Transport
accounts for about one third of each country's energy consumption.

UK transport uses only a tenth as much energy as the United States, but
there is less land available: the hydrogen switch would require 100,000 wind
turbines, enough to occupy an area greater than Wales.

It unlikely that enough turbines could ever be built, says Jim Oswald. On
the other hand, public opposition to nuclear energy deters many politicians.
"I suspect we will do nothing, because all the options are so unpopular."

"I don't think we'll ever have a true hydrogen economy. The outlook is
extremely bleak," he adds. The brothers outline their calculation in the
current issue of Accountancy magazine.

"Hydrogen is not a near-term prospect," agrees Paul Ekins, an energy
economist at the Policy Studies Institute, London. "There will have to be a
few fundamental breakthroughs in technology first," he says.

Politicians eager to promote their green credentials, yet unaware of the
realities, have oversold the hydrogen dream, says Ekins. "I'm amazed by the
number of politicians who think you can dig hydrogen out of the ground," he
says.

However, he thinks that the Oswalds are too pessimistic about the
possibilities of new technology. "An enormous amount of attention is being
paid to generating hydrogen cleanly," he says.

If we could trap the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuels underground, we
could convert them to hydrogen, says Ekins. "It's not tried and tested, but
it's a possibility." And it could become a reality by the time we have
enough hydrogen-powered cars to make it necessary, he says.

So do the Oswalds have a more immediate answer to the hydrogen problem? "We
could always use less energy, but that doesn't seem very likely," Jim Oswald
says ruefully.

© 2004 Nature Publishing Group

Jack Dingler wrote:
The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
one.

If you're going to troll us with these scams, at least come up with some
new material every year or two. The "hydrogen economy" was debunked long
ago.

John David Galt wrote in message ...
Jack Dingler wrote:
The hydrogen economy has been touted as a replacement for fossil fuels,
which release carbon dioxide when burnt, thus contributing to global
warming. Burning hydrogen produces only water.

But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
one.

That's what the guy said, you dimwit. You didn't read the whole post.

"We could always use less energy, but that doesn't seem very
likely ...."
Nevertheless, that's the answer.

=v= Yep.

Go to smaller cars and lower speeds like america did in the
70s save gas and 10,000 lives a year in america as a bonus.

=v= The gas savings was, alas, temporary. Basically, when the
price of gas came back down (though heavily-subsidized as
always, of course), people drove their fuel-efficient cars more
and farther. This ate up the gas savings, and even worse, took
some of the bite out of sprawl.

=v= So now the U.S. is covered with suburban sprawl that puts
many people hours away from their daily destinations, and so
they want luxury to spend those hours in, I guess. Meaning
bloated gas-guzzlers, and even though gas prices are low
(in constant dollars) they squeal about how "high" they are
because they're consuming so much of it.

=v= And the rest of us get to subsidize their equally-bloated
sense of entitlement.
_Jym_

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...

Is anyone still working on developing fusion? ISTR that it was "10 years away"
in the '70s when it could be funded out of the cold-war defense budget; but now
that the Cold War is over and "Cold Fusion" has been proven to be nonsense, I
doubt if anyone is even working on the idea any longer.

Fusion is still in the realm of science fiction, and indeed I expect to see
Pournelle's solar power satellites long before we see fusion, if we ever do.

John David Galt wrote:

But since you first have to produce the hydrogen using some other form of
energy, the whole concept of a "hydrogen economy" was dimwitted from day
one.

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?sect...le&storyid=750

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0700, John David Galt
wrote:

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...

Is anyone still working on developing fusion? ISTR that it was "10 years away"
in the '70s when it could be funded out of the cold-war defense budget; but now
that the Cold War is over and "Cold Fusion" has been proven to be nonsense, I
doubt if anyone is even working on the idea any longer.

Fusion is still in the realm of science fiction, and indeed I expect to see
Pournelle's solar power satellites long before we see fusion, if we ever do.


More accurately, CONTROLLED fusion is still not evolved into a
workable system. Fusion itself is easy enough to achieve.....
--
Elbridge Gerry, of Massachusetts:

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the
establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . .
Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of
the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order
to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House
of Representatives, August 17, 1789

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0700, John David Galt
wrote:



Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...


Is anyone still working on developing fusion?



Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
fuels run out before there is a good alternative.



Here's a chart showing the known and calculated peak oil dates for
various countries and regions.

http://www.peakoil.net/uhdsg/WORLD_SUMMARY_html.htm

Jack Dingler

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0700, John David Galt
wrote:


Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...

Is anyone still working on developing fusion?


Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
fuels run out before there is a good alternative.

There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.

John David Galt wrote:

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 17:00:30 -0700, John David Galt
wrote:


Not if you have hydrogen FUSION to generate the necessary energy...


Is anyone still working on developing fusion?



Let's hope so - we're going to be in a world of hurt if the fossil
fuels run out before there is a good alternative.


There already is: biofuels. They'll last as long as the sun.


How many millions of barrels a day do you think the US can produce?

Jack Dingler