Guardian Unlimited on the snags in the hydrogen ecnomy
Recently, Bibi van der Zee, a writer for the Guardian Unlimited, took a test drive in one of BMW's Hydrogen 7s. It's a damn comfortable ride, as I experienced at the AFVI conference a few months ago. Van der Zee calls the chance "irresistible," but quickly confronted the question (as we all must when hydrogen cars come up): "What's the point of making hydrogen-powered cars if there's no fuel for them?"
The article, then, is a look at the problems facing adoption of a hydrogen infrastructure here in May, 2007. We've heard a lot of this before: how to make the hydrogen in the first place, electric cars as a better choice, the constant "five to ten years from now" timeframe. I think she makes too much of a stumbling block out of the way different manufacturers are designing hydrogen cars (ICE vs. fuel cells), since the engineers are way ahead of the curve on this one and they'll have plenty of time to reconfigure powertrain parts in time for the appearance of widespread hydrogen fuel pumps.
Van der Zee even says that the hydrogen pipe dream is a bit of an American fantasy (even though it a BMW she was riding in), which I found interesting. Another bit that we don't hear much (but should be pretty obvious), is that, "an oil company insider tells me that very few people in their industry take hydrogen (or electricity for that matter) very seriously at all; it's just not considered a viable mainstream prospect. The majority of the industry believes that the future will lie in bio-fuels (which, as we are increasingly hearing, come with their own major pitfalls) and perceives hydrogen and electricity as having little more than novelty value." We do hear a lot from Chevron and the like about their biofuels programs. Could they be one of the largest factors holding back the hydrogen economy?
Gallery: AFVI Ride & Drive Hygroden 7
[Source: Guardian Unlimited]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Joseph 2:47PM (6/04/2007)
Biofuels? The primary fuel of the future?
I think not. In my humble opinion, electricity, from batteries, will be the fuel that most often drives our vehicles.
Biodiesel and ethanol are great, the thing is, is it really ethical to use food as fuel.
It's tough to use waste veggie oil as fuel on a large scale because of the lackof quality control. Biodiesel made in factories from plant oils are too expensive.
Etahnol from corn and other crops takes up too much space and it's unethical to use food for fuel, not ot mention the price increases in everything we eat b/c the market would demand so much corn or whatever crop.
To me, the only possible alternatives would be celluliosic ethanol or biodiesel from algea. However, both have yet to be proven as actual ways of fueling our cars. I'm sure they'll happen, but when is the question.
The oil companies have relatively little interest in saving our environment, they care about existing as company and that is why they are exploring alt. fuels. And of course, only alt. fuels that they can control. The reason they think biofuels is the future is because they control it, they don't care too much about whether it'll be harmful with all the pesticides or whatever the numerous problems may be.
The thing is, by the time a realistic biofuel economy springs up (celluliosic ethanol and those biodiesel algea) we'll have electric cars roaming the roads. The market will decide what's best, and I think the market will choose electric cars eventually, despite their higher cost and *limited* range of *only* a couple hundred miles.
Reply
Ron Fischer 2:47PM (6/04/2007)
Biofuels have one enormous drawback: they are not scalable to current consumption levels at prices which continue to support that consumption. However they also have an enormous, overriding advantage: to a first order they're compatible with existing vehicles and infrastructure.
Hydrogen faces the insurmountable difficulty of a new fueling infrastructure. The simple ways to fix this are piggybacking on natural gas or electric infrastructure. But these beg the questions: why not burn CNG directly or recharge with the electricity? Both of those are more efficient and less expensive than adding a conversion to hydrogen.
Hydrogen is only happening because US tax money and regulations favor it. Let's gradually eliminate this subsidy, along with the ones for ethanol and most importantly the favorable treatment of the oil business. Keep environmental regulation sane and sensible. Then prices will gradually rise and the cheapest real solutions will be selected.
Reply
Berkana 4:33PM (6/04/2007)
The problem with the hydrogen economy is that it leaves the fuel and the distribution and sale of fuel in the hands of the energy cartels. Hydrogen isn't really fuel if you need to use fuel to produce it; it just becomes a lousy battery.
We're not harvesting free hydrogen; the hydrogen everyone is talking about is hydrogen extracted from electrolyzing water, or by stripping it from hydrocarbons. All that takes electricity. Using some sort of energy to generate electricity (with losses) just to use the electricity to electrolyze water (with losses) and then having to compress and transport the hydrogen (with high energy expenses) just to use it in a fuel cell (with losses) to turn it back into electricity and water is MADNESS. We don't have a hydrogen distribution infrastructure, and hydrogen is a net loss of power as an electrical storage system. We do, however, have an electricity distribution system.
The future is not about the hydrogen economy; it's about the electron economy.
See these articles for a more thorough explanation:
http://www.thewatt.com/article-1238-nested-1-0.html
http://www.thewatt.com/article-1210-nested-1-0.html
Reply
Tim 5:01PM (6/04/2007)
Most readers of Autobloggreen seem to understand that Hydrogen is a red herring and Big Energy's way of stalling our transition off oil while they steal our tax dollars from foolish politicians for “research”. I wonder how much of the general population understands how stupid "They Hydrogen Economy" really is.
http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/h_scam.htm http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
Reply
TX CHL Instructor 9:32PM (6/04/2007)
"Could they be one of the largest factors holding back the hydrogen economy?"
The biggest factors holding back the so-called "Hydrogen Economy" are physics and chemistry.
Water is an ASH. It's at the bottom of a very steep energy well. No amount of playing with numbers or careful selection of 'facts' is going to change that. Physics.
Hydrogen is a tiny molecule that is 1) very hard to contain, 2) a very potent ozone-depletion agent, 3) has the widest range of explosive mixture with air of any gas, and 4) embrittles most metals. Chemistry.
Why does ABG use so much space on something that isn't even remotely 'green'?
Reply
TG 1:53AM (6/05/2007)
Writer Vander Zee suggests. . .
**Another bit that we don't hear much
(but should be pretty obvious), is that, *an oil company insider tells
me that very few people in their industry take hydrogen (or
electricity for that matter) very seriously at all. It's just not
considered a viable mainstream prospect. The majority of the industry
believes that the future will lie in bio-fuels.**
True for Hydrogen
but clearly not true for electricity.Both Big Oil and Big
Auto do take electricity very seriously and consider it a
threat to profits.
What else would motivate the crushing of
perfectly good EVs in a secure Arizona compound? = TG
Reply
Charlie Peters 12:00PM (8/17/2007)
A Background Research Paper on Corn Ethanol
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/08/14/18440750.php
Reply