| | As for the wonder hydrogen fuel cars, I was under the impression that they were decades away from commercial viability, they have the nasty problem of being highly explosive, and since there's no easy way to get hydrogen, it would require massive amounts of energy to produce. The government is involved in this, but they're funding the development of it, not squashing it's use. I would double-check your sources on that one.
Well, you got me interested enough in the proposals for me to spend a few hours researching the hydrogen economy. It is being pushed by government, but several private groups and corporations like the idea too. Both DaimlerChrysler and Honda have prototype fuel-cell cars in use, but don't plan to sell them to the public until around 2010, as several engineering issues have to be resolved. DaimlerChrysler drover their fuel-cell car across America about 2 years ago, and had numerous minor problems, but they suceeded in driving the car the full 3200 miles. Ultimately, the market will decide, but for these reasons, hydrogen looks preferable, to those who support it, as an all-around source of energy.
1) The fuel-cell is around 50% - 60% efficient in converting energy to electricity. This gives it a notch-up on conventional methods of producing power, and allows conventional fossil fuels to be converted to hydrogen without any significant energy loss to the final product.
2) Hydrogen can be made in numerous ways, from wind, solar cells, natural gas, nuclear power, hydroelectric power, and coal and oil. This allows it to be a generic stored form of energy, like a battery, without the limitations and energy loss associated with electrical batteries.
3) If everything in society ran off of hydrogen, then alternative forms of energy could become economically viable, as the resultant intermediate product would be hydrgen, rather than electricity which suffers significant loss in transportation and storage. Wind farms could be built on open plains, generating power which would be used to create hydrogen, which could then be transported long distances to urban centers by truck, without significant energy loss. Likewise hydro-electric plants, solar plants, and nuclear plants would no longer see the significant energy loss associated with the transmission of electricity. This aspect of the hydrogen economy could start to remove society from its dependence on fossil fuels.
4) Pollution would be removed from the cities, as fuel-cells produce pure water and heat as their only by-products. Along with a shift in reliance upon fossil fuels to renewable energy, aggregate pollution could be reduced.
5) It seems that some accident studies, on vehicles carrying hydrogen which have crashed, have demonstrated a lower hazard than comparative crashes with vehicles containing gasoline. So it may not be as dangerous as popularly thought. (Though I'd still like to wait a few years before purchasing my fuel-cell car, to see the results myself, first.)
6) The oil industry is still expected to see peak production within the next 10 years, (and this target hasn't changed in the recent past). Following the production peak, oil production will fall much faster than the rise, because the world's energy requirements are increasing at an exponential rate. Another type of energy economy will eventuall be necessary, as oil production falls. The hydrogen economy seems like an ideal candidate to succeed the oil economy.
Craig
|
|
