Hydrogen economy unnecessary, say City College of New York researchers
The "right" fuel of the future is not yet decided, but bloggers at Technology Review, an independent media company owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, are convinced that hydrogen is certainly the wrong fuel to be the farm on. They first wrote about their stance in a survery called "It's Not Too Late" about a month ago. In that piece, they argued that we have the technologies available today to dramatically lower greenhouse gas emissions and we certainly don't need to wait for the hydrogen economy or other new alternative energy sources to kick the fossil fuel habit. The writers recently revisited the topic with a post that finds other researchers coming to the same conclusion.Researchers at City College of New York (writing in the journal Science) found that actually implementing all of the alternative energy generation types available now (concentrated solar thermal energy, nuclear energy, geothermal and hydroelectric plants, wind energy, photovoltaic cells, and biomass) could "could replace all fossil fuel power plants". As if that's not enough, they even claim that plug-in hybrid vehicles could replace 80 percent of the gasoline used in the United States. The problem – and you knew there was a problem – is cost. Their estimate to reduce fossil fuels by 70 percent is $200 billion per year for 30 years. Yikes. But it'd be money well-spent.
[Source: Technology Review]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Howard Lee Harkness 2:08PM (9/03/2006)
"an independent media company owned by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, are convinced that hydrogen is certainly the wrong fuel to be[t] the farm on."
We'll see if somebody that is smart enough to publicly buck the current Political Correctness can survive. Too bad that being 100% correct about the stupidity of using hydrogen to power cars doesn't seem to matter.
The "hydrogen economic" isn't just unnecessary; the whole idea is insanely stupid.
Reply
Shaky 8:40PM (9/03/2006)
*** Their estimate to reduce fossil fuels by 70 percent is $200 billion per year for 30 years. Yikes. But it'd be money well-spent. ***
Not sure I'll go to the trouble of chasing down a copy of Science at the library, but I'm skeptical that these two perfessors are capable of assessing the costs involved -- over a span of 30 years, no less -- even remotely accurately. In reality that would be an incredibly complicated problem.
Actually I'll go further. This is an economic question. If these guys are not economists (and one's a Chemical Engineer, don't know what the other one is), it's highly unlikely they did a credible cost analysis at all.
Reply
Jake 2:56AM (9/05/2006)
"Their estimate to reduce fossil fuels by 70 percent is $200 billion per year for 30 years. Yikes."
Unless I am wrong, I belive that is less than the national debt that has accumulated in the past six years.
If these guys are off by 30 years it still sounds cheap.
Reply
Manu Sharma 5:20AM (9/04/2006)
I agree with Shaky. Not sure if they took into account decreasing costs of altertnative energy technologies over the coming years. Calculating the cost based on today's prices makes no sense.
Reply
jcwinnie 5:41PM (9/05/2006)
Well, then, that must be why Woolsey advised the Press Club to "Forget Hydrogen, Forget Hydrogen, Forget Hydrogen". I guess I should be pleased those cityfolk think plug-in hybrids are en vogue.
There is a problem.
"You mean the $200 billion for batteries?"
No, no, the Swiss bankers will let us lease them at $165 a month. No, I have a problem with those plug-in, flex fuel vehicles.
"What's that?"
Well, if my plug-in, flex fuel hybrid is running on renewable energy like nuclear, will I have to wear a dosimeter ALL THE TIME? I mean what if I forget to put in on one day, or lose it, or something.
"Hm, I see your problem."
Reply
John 1:40AM (9/05/2006)
$200 Billion a year? How much does the US need to devote to the military to maintain the current rates of oil flow? Seems to me you could save a huge chunk of that by not fighting wars over oil. Using that money to build as opposed to using it to destroy would do a lot more for future generations than keeping on building bombs and fighter jets. If the Middle East had no oil, the US government would care no more for regime change and stability in the Middle East than they would with any other conflict in the world.
Reply