Philippine writer wants today the fuel economy he heard about in 1995
Antonio Abaya, a writer for the Manila Standard in the Philippines, has been ready for hydrogen fuel cells since checking out a fuel cell briefing in 1995. In an article that tries to reframe some of the recent bad news about how humans are wrecking the environment, Abaya writes about carbon-free power. Without question, he says, we need to stop using carbon-based fossil fuels. This won't be an easy process, but it has to move forward. Two countries, Iceland and Sweden, armed with money, small populations and plentiful alternative energy sources (geothermal in Iceland, hydroelectric in Sweden), are moving away from carbon to hydrogen. The rest of the world should look to these two countries for inspiration, Abaya said, suggesting that Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo would do well to send technical teams to establish cooperation to develop these alternatives.
Abaya says hydrogen is better than other alternative energy sources. Biomass and ethanol still produce carbon dioxide when burned. Nuclear fusion is currently a pipe dream, decades away from practical implementation. Solar and wind cannot produce enough energy in a small enough area. Fuel cells, though, are advanced, can't cause catastrophic accidents, and emit nothing but water vapor. The problem is that it costs so much more to generate the electricity in a fuel cell than using, say, coal. But, given the recent Stern Report suggesting $294 billion dollars be spent to combat global warming, fuel cells should receive priority funding.
[Source: Manila Standard Today / Antonio C. Abaya]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Howard Lee Harkness 3:16PM (11/13/2006)
"Without question, he says, we need to stop using carbon-based fossil fuels.[...]Abaya says hydrogen is better than other alternative energy sources."
The principal problems with hydrogen are 1) it isn't economical/efficient, 2) it isn't safe, 3) it isn't convenient, and 4) it isn't 'green'. Solving all of those problems requires invention of entirely new technologies, and the repeal of several laws of physics and chemistry. There is no scenario for the use of hydrogen power in cars that wouldn't be rendered more economical, safer, more convenient, and 'greener' by just leaving out the hydrogen part.
Carbon-neutral (or even better, carbon-sequestering) is a much better approach than trying to be carbon-free. For starters, it's actually attainable with current technology -- e.g., with biodiesel.
Using hydrogen to power cars is insanely stupid.
Reply
Tony Belding 3:56PM (11/13/2006)
Quote, "Abaya says hydrogen is better than other alternative energy sources." But as most of us know by now, hydrogen isn't an energy source. It's a synthetic fuel that has to be manufactured, and its manufacture consumes energy. It's simply a method of storing energy -- and not the most efficient method. To present hydrogen as a fuel *source* competing against fission, solar power, etc. is simply dishonest. This is the kind of dishonesty that much hydrogen hype was built upon.
The article also brushes aside biofuels because they are carbon-based. But, their carbon is drawn from the atmosphere when the fuel crops are growing, so they are carbon neutral! I don't much like the cavalier manner in which he writes off solar and geothermal power either. It's a highly biased article.
Reply