Does a hydrogen economy make sense? Ulf Bossel says no
Does a "hydrogen economy" make sense? Personally, I don't pretend to know enough about every aspect of the technology required to run all of our necessities on hydrogen, but Ulf Bossel, an expert on fuel cells, claims to know just that.
His answer: No, a hydrogen based economy does not make sense. He explains in this article that it takes too much energy to extract the hydrogen from natural compounds and use it to make it economically feasible. Bossel does predict that additional technology will come about to establish a hydrogen economy, but does not believe it will ever make economic sense to pursue.
Bossel instead points to what he calls an "electron economy." He suggests gathering electricity from renewable resources and figuring the best way to get it to the consumer. In closing, he points to a future where electricity is the dominant power source, electric cars are commonplace and a modernized electricity infrastructure exists. I know that not all of us are experts, but what do you think? Will this "electron economy" come about, and if so, how?
Related:
- The hydrogen economy's nitty-gritty details explained by the DOE
- Colorado project will use wind to produce hydrogen
- HyPower hydrogen powers a Volkswagen GTi
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tim 2:28PM (12/19/2006)
Someone finally speaks the whole truth- The Hydrogen Economy is a stall and a ruse!!! It’s a red haring. Hydrogen is a terribly inefficient and dangerous way to store, transport and consume energy! Electricity from renewable sources and Bio-diesel from plants such as algae that don’t deplete the soil and poison our water makes logical long-term sense. Rule of thumb: If it needs long-term gov’t subsidies like corn based ethanol, it’s a loser!
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 3:49PM (12/19/2006)
"Personally, I don't pretend to know enough about every aspect of the technology required to run all of our necessities on hydrogen..."
All you need to know is that using hydrogen to power a car is insanely stupid.
Hydrogen makes wonderful rocket fuel, and it's good for making edible oils pretty but toxic (hydrogenation, as in "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil").
It doesn't have a lot of other economic uses. It doesn't burn hot enough for most industrial uses, and it's extremely hazardous to store and transport. When it does burn, it releases almost of its energy in the ultraviolet range, making a hydrogen fire difficult to see and extremely hazardous to firefighters. It embrittles most metals, making long-term use in an ICE essentially impossible without lots of expensive maintenance. It has the widest range of explosive mix with air of any gas known. It is expensive and energy-consuming to manufacture, and most commercial hydrogen is currently produced from reduction of methane, because other methods are much more expensive -- releasing CO2 in the process, so it isn't even 'green' in any meaningful sense of the word. In order to store it in quantities large enough to power a car, it has to compressed to ridiculous pressure into a highly tempting terrorist target.
The so-called "hydrogen economy" is not possible without either massive subsidies or government coercion.
"His answer: No, a hydrogen based economy does not make sense."
While Mr. Bossel is correct, "Insanely stupid" is a much better descriptive assessment.
Reply
Paul Berg 4:34PM (12/19/2006)
He has a point. The hydrogen economy might be the best compromise for the world right now to reach clean fuel and satisfye the strong energy companies of big oil and give them an alternative to keep making big money on hydrogen... But on the other hand, the better the alternatives conserning storing elictricity becomes the more people will naturaly use those battery elternatives as they become greater.
Reply
Kyle A 9:20PM (12/19/2006)
A few of you have strong feelings of the dangers of storing hydrogen. First let's be clear I'm not pro-hydrogen vs. electricity, but the DANGERS OF STORING HYDROGEN IS A VERY WEAK ARGUMENT! You guys are regurgitating a wrongly perceived notion that hydrogen is dangerous substance to transport, but if you did a bit more research you will find that storing hydrogen, while presenting different challenges, is much safer to store than gasoline. Hydrogen is lighter than air, so if it ever is leaked and ignited, it produces a flame that burns directly vertical from the tank with much less heat given off. Gasoline dangerously stays grounded and combusts outwards, with a MUCH HOTTER flame. Bottom line, if you compare the explosion in a gasoline powered car vs. hydrogen powered car, very minimal damage is inflicted to the hydrogen car whereas the gasoline car is toast. If you are going to bash hydrogen, do it with a bit more integrity. Pick on its conversion inefficiencies, but don't falsely accuse hydrogen of being any more dangerous!
Reply
CM 3:26AM (12/20/2006)
Hydrogen might not be hazardous in small quantities at low pressure, but a balloon of H2 will not power a car. In order to get a reasonable range, GM is proposing using large tanks compressed to 10,000 psi, and at those pressures a leak is a high speed jet of gas. Ignited, it could burn things for a great distance in any direction, made worse in that the flame is almost invisible.
Liquid H2 has its own peculiar hazards, due to the ultra-low temperatures required.
But we need not concentrate on the hazards of H2. Inefficiency and high costs make H2 fueled cars a non-starter.
Reply
Tim 10:18AM (12/20/2006)
Any pressurized gas is dangerous. Add highly flammable and you have a bomb. It really doesn’t matter if its Hydrogen, CNG, LNG, Methane or whatever, it’s a terrorist’s dream. You can throw a lit match into diesel (bio or petro) that has been spilled on the ground and it won’t ignite. Try that with gas or ethanol. Just one spark with any of these gasses and BOOM! If you think they aren’t worried follow this link. http://www.lngdanger.com/. Yea, Hydrogen is also about as inefficient as an energy carrier can be. It’s just bad science. The only 2 reasons we’re talking about it is (1) some idiots without money talked other idiots with access to tax money into giving them some and (2) Big Oil (monopoly) wants to change our addiction from one drug (Fossil) to another (Hydrogen). They know that (unlike clean save electricity or bio-diesel) we can’t easily and cheaply produce, compress, store and transfer Hydrogen. Follow the lobbing money.
Reply
Tim 10:27AM (12/20/2006)
Read this and tell me you still like Hydrogen. http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h_scam.htm
Reply
Dan 5:45PM (12/20/2006)
That article is absolutely correct, hydrogen is slightly better than gas (Theoretically), BUT IT IS IN NO WAY AS GOOD AS A PURE ELECTRIC!! There is no point in creating electricity, then turning it into hydrogen, and then back into electricity. It is much better to just skip hydrogen all together. I was originally a supporter of hydrogen, until i actually looked at the big picture and saw exactly what this guy did- an electron economy- with no hydrogen bs.
Reply
Tim 11:40AM (12/28/2006)
A terrorist’s dream is to have a giant tanker of Hydrogen parked next to a big fat target. Spilled bio-diesel (or electricity for that matter) is less toxic to the environment than salt or sugar.
“Hydrogen may be considered to be one of the most destructive gases to escape into the atmosphere. It will destroy ozone in an irreversible process, reduce oxygen levels and produce water vapor in the stratosphere.” http://www.ozone-depletion.com/. Hydrogen is a very small molecule.
Reply
Vera 4:43PM (1/09/2007)
This figure is misunderstanding! Why start from the AC electricity? Also fuel cell efficiency could be higher than 50%.
Reply