Robert Zubrin: America needs to abandon the false promise of the hydrogen age
I almost feel silly doing it, as it has been covered ad nauseam, but here is a list of a few of hydrogen's pluses and minuses, courtesy of Robert Zubrin., author of The New Atlantis, Good:
- Hydrogen is super abundant
- Hydrogen burns clean
- Hydrogen fuel cells emit only water
- There is no current infrastructure to support it
- The energy needs to be removed, which takes energy
- Hydrogen is difficult to contain in autos
[Source: Boing Boing via Seattle PI]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Phuc Vu 11:40AM (2/09/2007)
Of course there isn't current infrastructure to support it because it's NEW. Don't give up because it's new. Even a small infrastructure will help and harnessing the wind could help create hydrogen.
If Iceland can do it... so can't the USA. Thank god that Robert Zubrin isn't in power!!! He would have us back-pedaling because all he see's is the NEGATIVE.
Reply
Tony Belding 1:04PM (2/09/2007)
The USA is not Iceland, we don't have easily tapped sources of geothermal power all over our vast country -- and, I'd wager, we use a lot more energy per capita than Iceland. (This reminds me of the "Brazil" argument for ethanol. The USA isn't Brazil either.)
The real question to ask about hydrogen is not whether it can work. I have no doubt it could be made to work. The real question is whether it's better than any of the other alternatives that we are looking at. As far as vehicles are concerned, hydrogen fuel seems to be at a marked disadvantage compared with battery-electric vehicles, and probably compared with biofuels as well. (That's especially true if we can successfully produce biofuels from genetically engineered algae.)
Reply
Brett 12:40PM (2/09/2007)
I guess every technology is going to have its detractors and naysayers. The hydrogen detractors have some valid points. H2 is particularly hard to transport economically. The point is to keep funding research with promise. Right now plug-in hybrid drivetrains are looking like the best thing out there for the near and long term. With H2 fed fuel cells as a range extenders, you have the promise of practically eliminating mobil source emissions, quick refueling for long trips, and greater electrical generation efficiency than internal combustion engine systems. So what if right now H2 generation is done with natural gas reformation on a large scale, and that involves CO2 generation. Well, home H2 generation with electrolysis has already be demonstrated. The technology has promise, so keep funding it. Don't argue that other technologies have "more" promise, and funding should be shifted to those technologies. That just leaves us chasing a nonexistent silver bullet. Fund all the promising technology development, because right now the amount being spent is really inadequate if as a country we are serious about reducing our transportation sector dependence on oil.
Reply
Tim 1:07PM (2/09/2007)
Phuc Vu- Iceland would greatly enhance (maybe even by 4X) the efficiency of their natural geothermal energy if they just powered V2G PHEVs with electricity produced with turbines or Stirling Heat Engines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_Cycle
Hydrogen will never will be "Practical” or readily available. Either it comes from reforming fossil fuels which is cheaper but VERY dirty, or as in Iceland, it's electrolyzed from water at 4X the cost and 1/4 the efficiently. Bottom line is that using Hydrogen to store electrons to power an electric vehicle is 4X LESS efficient than just using batteries. http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html Fuel cells use exotic rare metals. They are Extremely Expensive and they have a short working life. Yea, H2 really makes sense… NOT!
The statement that Hydrogen is super abundant is a LIE! On this planet, H2 is almost ALWAYS locked-up in a Hydrocarbon or Water. Its important job there is to sequester green house gasses. HELLO… It does not occur FREELY in nature on this planet!! It is abundant only as the smallest building block of other molecules. When you separate the Hydrogen from the other parts of these molecules you (A) Waste lots of energy, and/or (B) release something else that is very bad for the environment. . http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h_scam.htm
I have an idea. We’ve now spent $BILLIONS worldwide looking at Hydrogen only to learn that It is bad science! It’s time now to put away the science project and get to work concentrating on renewable energy sources. We’ve wasted enough time, intellectual energy and money on the Hydrogen wild goose chase. Been There! Looked at it! It’s too dangerous, expensive and inefficient to make any sense. NEXT!!!
Reply
Lion Kuntz 11:51PM (2/11/2007)
http://hydrogentruth.info/Villains/Debunking_Robert_Zubrin_H2Hoax.html
Debunking Rightwinger Propagandist Robert Zubrin's so-called Hydrogen Hoax
Reply