|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"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_ |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
on Bush and his crashes | Boris Foelsch | Techniques | 1152 | November 12th 04 03:33 AM |
"Nobel laureate (in Economics) calls for steeper tax cuts in US" | Steve | Racing | 223 | November 7th 04 11:36 PM |
How Is Brake Reach Measured? | Question Man | Techniques | 2 | April 14th 04 09:31 PM |
Bike Fit - Reach | Ed | General | 7 | October 2nd 03 03:52 PM |