So, instead of genuinely switching to hydrogen to ease American dependence on imported petroleum and clean up the air, GeeDubya and his lackeys have now found a way to make “alternative fuel” just as polluting, dependent, and profitable as the system we’re currently stuck with. Why am I not entirely surprised by this?
Obdecember challenge: Are there any honorable Bush supporters in the audience who will admit this administration is lying (again) to the American public? Or will The Usual Suspects merely spin this to tell us that black is white, up is down, and petroleum-derived hydrogen won’t keep us chained to the Middle East for the forseeable future?
I’d think it wold be done by nuclear reactors producing electricity to make Hydrogen and Oxygen from seawater.
Generating elctricity for that prupose with tidal forces would be nice, but that’s a lot of tide…
I forgot that this might be a revelation.
The plan has always been for the hydrogen to come from fossil fuels despite the number of alternative sources.
rjung, Mother Jones may not be the very best source of scientific facts. Just based on general reading, here are some facts for you to contemplate.[ul][]Hydrogen power is not a way to create energy; it’s a way to distribute energy. The energy must initiate from some other process. []Hydrogen cars would make us less dependent on foreign oil, because the initial source of the energy need not be oil. It could be coal, wind, solar, nuclear, fusion, etc.[]To the degree that the initial source of energy were fission, fusion, wind or solar, hydrogen power would reduce the production of greenhouse gases.[]Even if the initial source of the energy were coal and oil, the air and water would become much cleaner, because the coal and oil could be burned and converted into hydrogen power at a few, remote, large-scale locations, rather than burning oil in 100 million separate vehicles. These locations would have far better pollution control devices than each separate car does. Also, their remote location means that what pollution they do cause would not be concentrated in the cities.[/ul]
You are just grasping at any straw to try and discredit Bush, aren’t you?
I am going to have to second december’s post that hydrogen cars will still require fossil fuels for separating the hydrogen from water. The only alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear power which has its own problems or alternatives like wind or solar which can’t meet our current energy needs.
So I am afraid that there is no secret magical energy source that the government is sitting in as part of a conspiracy to keep us in the Middle East.
Umm… what december said. I think that hydrogen powered cars would make for overall cleaner air and such, even if all the power originally comes from exact same sources it comes from now, based on tighter environmental standards on power plants than exist on cars. I heard the speech in which Bush announced his hydrogen plan. He never said anything that would be lying. What he said may have been misleading if you’re ignorant, but a State of the Union address is hardly a place for a 30 minute science lesson on the precise nature of hydrogen-powered cars.
Of course, I still disagree with the hydrogen car thing, only because I think it won’t work, and it’s a colossal waste of taxpayer money.
Jeff
Where did you think this energy was coming from?
If you had been paying attntion to this issue for the last ten years, and you were conversant with the science, you would understand how absolutely and innane this article is in it’s objection.
There are two key benefits to fuel cell technology. The first is that a fuel cell is highly efficient. Ballard Power Fuel cells now run with about 80% efficiency, and they expect to get into the low 90s within the next couple of years. Internal combustion maxes out at about 30% efficiency. This means that a fuel cell powered car would get about three times the mileage of an equivalent gas powered vehicle.
The second benefit is generation: A plant that produces power has the ability to do so much more cleanly and efficiently than your vehicle. If Fossil fuels need to be burned, it is best they are done in clean efficient plants rather than your car.
If you would think but for a moment you would realize that the hydrogen we are talking about for powering these vehicles has to come from somewhere. There is essentially no free hydrogen just floating around for us to power our cars with, nor are there any pools or oceans of hydrogen.
There are essentially two ways to get hydrogen that are relevant for fuel cell powered vehicles. Seperate it from water (takes energy,) and reform it from fossil fuels (also takes energy.)
Where was it that you thought they were going to get the hydrogen from?
Deriving hydrogen from fossil fuels is actually more efficient than trying to get it from water or many other sources. Oil, in particular is part of a family of chemicals called hydro-carbons because they are composed almost entirely of hydrogen and carbon atoms - long chains of them in fact. The amount of hydrogen that can be derived from a small quantity of oil is many times greater than what can be derived from the same quantity of water. Yes, some amount of energy must be expended to break the oil into its component parts, but it and the resultant pollution are relatively small compared to the results of tens of millions of automobiles with internal combustion engines being operated ever day.
To take issue with another point, the “hyrodrogen-powered car” mentioned in the OP is, in fact powered by a fuel cell. Check out this explanation at HowStuffWorks.com to get a better idea of what that means. Basically, the energy used in a car powered by a fuel cells is derived from combining Hydrogen and Oxygen to form water. If you try to make a car that carries water to be converted to its H and O components for use in the fuel cell, the car will use all of the energy dreived from the fuel cell to make more H and O (that’s how physics and chemistry work). Sure you could develop processing plants to do the work, but as I said before, using water as the source for the H and O is just not very efficient, and would still require energy from somewhere to make that happen anyway.
If you had been paying attention to posts, you would have seen that I though it might come from nuclear power generating electricity to make Hydrogen from seawater.
OHMYGAWD… what a bunch of malarkey! You want me to spin this upside down?? that would just make it right side up.
Science background: Crude oil is a mix of Hydrocarbon chains. In english that means it is made up of molecules that have carbon and hydrogen atoms. An Oil refinery separates different lengths of hydrocarbon chains. Longer chains of hydrocarbons are asphalt and tar, shorter chains are heating oil, lubricating oil, even shorter chains are kerosene and gasoline, shorter chains are hydrozene and if you break the chains completely you end up with carbon and hydrogen. So the “byproduct” of a refinery is gasoline, oil and other petroleum stuff. Big clue here, they make hydrogen NOW. But the demand will skyrocket if hydrogen powered cars become popular so they will process the crude oil longer and get more hydrogen. No change in production facilities or equipment, no need to make nuclear hydrolysis machines, its there. its ready. they can already do it. they have distribution set and all you need are hydorgen fuel cell recharging stations. It makes the hydrogen cheaper and easier for the public to accept.
In case you missed it, theres also new technology that will turn garbage (any garbage, even plastics) into a hydrocarbon chain similar to heating fuel oil which can be further refined to get …hydrogen. It was on this board a few weeks ago. Its called depolymerization. This technology alone can potentially process enuf oil to remove the USA’s dependence on foriegn oil.
Now as far as the car itself. Most of its byproduct is steam. Thats what most of these car developer yahoos say. However, you have to consider that any moving part in that engine has to be lubricated and any lubrication going thru that stress and heat will breakdown and go out with the exhaust so I wouldnt be drinking the stuff that comes out of the tailpipe of one of those things but the pollution output is very significantly less than what a gas powered engine will produce.
That motherjones article has less credibility than the Matrix human fuel cell premise.
Seawater, solar energy, and wind turbines? I mean, these folks in Australia are certainly giving it a go.
Yes, extracting hydrogen from petroleum and natrual gas is more efficient at the moment, but I’d imagine the purpose of supporting R&D into this stuff was to try to get other sources to be just as cheap and efficient.
Sure, but since the whole point of this endeavor was to get the United States off the “imported fossil fuels” habit, it seems rather stupefying to jump right back on the bandwagon, don’chaknow?
I think it is good to have someone you despise so much that you can blame them for just about anything.
“The looming (insert potential disaster or past disappointment here) is all the fault of that evil, no-good (insert your villain of choice…perhaps Clinton, Kissenger, GWB, Reagan, Louis Farrukhan etc…) because he is more interested in getting his griends rich than what is good for the people!”
Even if your ideal is to have hydrogen collected from seawater from wind and solar power, this seems like a good first step.
The hardest part about getting hydrogen powered cars is getting the distribution network in place. It makes sense, while investing all this capital, to get the hydrogen from the cheapest source. Especially since, as was mentioned above, we are already producing it in large quantities.
Then, once there is a hydrogen pump at every gas station, your entrepreneurial coastal resident can start manufacturing his own hydrogen if he will find it profitable.
Hydrogen produced by cracking water with fossil-fuel derived electricity produces more GHG emissions than a direct gasoline fueled vehicle. However, this process is not typically used because it is both enivronmentally and economically wasteful.
Most hydrogen in this country is produced by steam reforming domestic (USA/Canada) natural gas; a vehicle fueled by this type of hydrogen has 66% of the well-to-wheels GHG emissions of a similar gasoline-powered vehicle.
If you start looking at “clean” or renewable energy sources, like wind, solar, nuclear, or biomass, GHG emissions are practically eliminated.
rjung, note that the article made the assumption that fossil fuels would be “burned” to produce hydrogen. It’s just not economically feasibly to refine petroleum, burn it, and split water molecules to store 30% of the original energy as hydrogen gas, when the same fossil fuels can be put through a reformer, heated with a catalyst, and retain 70-80% of the original energy. Listen to december for once… he knows what he’s talking about.
Scylla, can you back up your effficiency numbers for the Ballard cells? The best overall efficiencies I’ve seen for most PEM fuel cells are around 50%.
Fuel cells will help us get off the foreign energy bandwagon, but not quite yet. As the technology matures and efficienies continue to increase, less hydrogen will be needed to power any given vehicle. Moreover, when oil starts to become scarce, the rising costs will force the market to examine alternative energy sources that just hadn’t been economically feasible. Once the infrastructure is in place, your car could run on coal, or wind, or solar, or fusion… the beauty of hydrogen is it doesn’t matter what type of energy is used to produce it.
