Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Hydrogen highway' bad route, group says; Alternative fuel championed by governor flawed
Oakland Tribune ^ | 11/20/04 | Harrison Sheppard

Posted on 11/20/2004 10:02:46 AM PST by SierraWasp

'Hydrogen highway' bad route, group says
Alternative fuel championed by governor flawed, but proponents say give it more time

By Harrison SheppardSACRAMENTO BUREAU

Saturday, November 20, 2004 -

SACRAMENTO -- A report by a libertarian think tank seeks to debunk Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plans for a "hydrogen highway" by claiming hydrogen-fueled vehicles will make little difference in reducing harmful emissions.

The report released this week by the Reason Foundation argues that even while hydrogen itself may be clean-burning, the processes used to manufacture and distribute hydrogen are dirty enough to nearly negate the benefits -- and the cost of conversion isn't worth the difference.

The study instead advocates more conservation, lowering freeway speed limits and making gasoline-powered cars smaller.

"Until we figure out ways to create hydrogen that are less energy-intensive or the performance of hydrogen improves, it's not a good air-quality measure," said Adrian Moore, the study's project director.

State environmental officials concede the study's argument has some merit -- if one only considers the current state of technology. But hydrogen is still an emerging science with rapid advances, and it is expected to be cheaper and more efficient in the future, said Michele St. Martin, spokeswoman for the California Department of Environmental Protection.

Ultimately, she said, the goal is to produce hydrogen through clean, renewable sources such as solar, wind and biomass, rather than natural gas.

"Every day these vehicles coming out are lighter and more fuel-efficient," St. Martin said. "At the end of the day, experts are saying hydrogen-powered vehicles will be at least twice as fuel-efficient as gasoline vehicles."

Earlier this year, Schwarzenegger proposed a "California Hydrogen Highway Network" that would result in a network of up to 200 hydrogen fueling stations on the state's freeways by 2010. The project is expected to cost $75 million to $200 million, with much of the costs picked up by the private sector.

The state has already opened three hydrogen fueling stations -- in Los Angeles, Davis and San Francisco -- and expects to have 18 more open soon, she said. City governments in those regions are using hydrogen cars in pilot programs.

Hydrogen car supporters say they are the clean-burning wave of the future, producing only water, not dirty carbon dioxide, in their exhaust.

The Reason study said it is not the emissions of individual hydrogen vehicles that is troubling, but the way in which hydrogen is produced and distributed. Hydrogen plants would most likely run on natural gas, which results in high emissions of carbon dioxide, the study argues.

The study also notes that converting some vehicles to hydrogen may actually make them greater polluters because hydrogen vehicles are heavier and therefore take more energy to generate the same horsepower.

According to the study, a Hummer H2 that is converted to hydrogen use will be about 1,000 pounds heavier. In order to get the same performance as a gasoline powered Hummer, a greater amount of carbon dioxide will be produced.

Schwarzenegger, who was criticized during the recall campaign for driving a Hummer, promised to convert one of his vehicles to hydrogen.

Last month, he appeared at a press conference at Los Angeles International Airport driving a hydrogen Hummer to open a fueling station there, although it turned out the vehicle was a prototype loaner from General Motors that is not available to the public.

V. John White, an adviser to the Sierra Club on clean-air issues, said he is skeptical of findings by the Reason Foundation because of the group's ideological bias. Hydrogen, he said, is only one part of a multipronged strategy to reduce emissions in California, and the hydrogen field continues to improve.

"The Reason Foundation doesn't accept we're living in a carbon-constrained world, and petroleum is rapidly reaching its peak and will soon begin a long decline," White said. "The alternatives to our addiction to petroleum are important to develop."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: energy; energylist; flatulence; hersheyhighway; highway; hydrogen; hydrogenhighway; idiocy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 last
To: newzjunkey
And we can do this *at home* and not have to be beholden to OPEC and other Mid-East interests for an eternity. This technology potentially underscores our sovereignty.

This is very important. We can stop trading with the ME. The Islamocrazies can have their countries back and can roll the clock back to the seventh century when the camel was the ultimate SUV. We will live in the twenty-first century and ignore them.

121 posted on 12/18/2004 6:52:06 AM PST by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks

That "paragraph summary" is a powerful compilation of some very pursuasive information, indeed!!! Excellent work!!!


122 posted on 12/18/2004 7:41:32 AM PST by SierraWasp (Ronald Reagan was an exceptional "celebrity!" Jesse Ventura & Arnold Schwarzenrenegger are NOT!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: snopercod

Where you hidin, dude? I miss your input! Did you git banned er sumthin???


123 posted on 09/17/2005 7:17:10 PM PDT by SierraWasp (The only thing that can save CA is making eastern CA the 51st state called Sierra Republic!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

"You couldn't plant enough biomass if you used all the airable land in the nation"

Do you have a source of data that supports this claim?


124 posted on 09/17/2005 7:26:14 PM PDT by Amish with an attitude (An armed society is a polite society)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: EagleUSA
They have completely ignored that fact that hydrogen is ALSO AN ALTERNATIVE TO GASOLINE which would help provide for the added competition and needed supply to meet the demands of a healthy economy.

It is an alternative to gasoline only in one sense--both are point energy sources you can drive around with.

The difference is that gasoline is itself an energy source. That is, you get a lot more energy out of gasoline than it takes to make it.

Hydrogen is NOT a source of energy. It is best thought of as a battery, and not a very efficient one. Why? It takes more energy to produce hydrogen than you get burning it.

Deceitful greens and gullible conservatives run around proclaiming hydrogen is how we break free of the sheiks. Nope. Unlike oil, there are no pools of hydrogen lying around that we can mine. Instead, we have to extract it from water (H2O) and that takes a lot of energy.

So while greens are driving around in their hydrogen cars feeling self-righteous, they ignore that it took more oil or coal to produce that hydrogen than they would have used were they driving a gasoline powered hummer.

So in it's most important sense, hydrogen is NOT an alternative to gasoline. It is just a way to get energy from fossil fuels to a car, albeit indirectly--a battery.

125 posted on 01/30/2006 12:35:56 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sefarkas
Hydrogen will do what nuclear power has already done -- displace oil as an energy source; saving it for petrochemical feedstock. Replacing gasoline will happen when the consumers are faced with high enough prices for gasoline that make other fuels viable options

Arghhhh. Hydrogen is NOT an energy source. It takes more energy to make the hydrogen from water than you get back when you burn it. It is a battery. To make hydrogen, you will have to burn fossil fuels or have a huge nuclear energy industry.

126 posted on 01/30/2006 12:37:54 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ModelBreaker
Arghhhh yourself

Any process, by definition, requires more energy in than the energy extracted, unless you believe in perpetual motion. It takes a tremendous amount of electricity to run the diffusion machines to enrich uranium. It takes electricity and fuel to run the refineries. The point of any fuel is that it is cheaper to convert it in to form (gasoline, uranium pellets), and have it create energy where and when it is needed.

Go back to Physics class.
127 posted on 01/30/2006 3:43:20 AM PST by sefarkas (why vote Democrat-lite???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: sefarkas
Any process, by definition, requires more energy in than the energy extracted, unless you believe in perpetual motion. It takes a tremendous amount of electricity to run the diffusion machines to enrich uranium. It takes electricity and fuel to run the refineries. The point of any fuel is that it is cheaper to convert it in to form (gasoline, uranium pellets), and have it create energy where and when it is needed.

This is true but misses the point. As I said in my previous post, it takes more energy to extract hydrogen from water than you get back from the hydrogen (the point which you then restated in the above quoted language).

But the opposite is true for extracting oil from the ground or digging uranium--it takes less energy to extract than you get burning it. That's why nuclear can replace oil as a primary energy source and why hydrogen is only an storage medium for energy obtained from primary energy sources--a battery.

Do you really believe that hydrogen is an alternative to oil in the sense that it could act as a primary energy source? If not, I don't understand your initial point--that is, hydrogen should be set up as a competitor to oil. Even if we had an intact hydrogen infrastructure (so I've just saved you billions of dollars) hydrogen can't compete with nuclear and oil because we would still have to get the energy somewhere to store in the form of elemental hydrogen. And that somewhere would almost certainly be nuclear and fossil fuel.

If your point was that oil is a battery too, that is technically correct. Oil contains stored energy from the sun and geologic processes. But that's on a time scale of hundreds of millions of years--not really relevant to this discussion.

128 posted on 01/30/2006 7:51:03 AM PST by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna; All
Must have slept through science (along with a few other classes) but when hydrogen is 'consumed' to make energy, what happens to it?
Is hydrogen still produced via electrolysis? Other more efficient systems available to make it?
129 posted on 02/06/2006 6:52:47 PM PST by investigateworld (Abortion stops a beating heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld
Hydrogen is unique in the sense that at ordinary temperatures it can act like either an oxidizing agent (oxygen, chlorine, fluorine, etc) or a reducing agent (a metal). In most of the uses envisioned for hydrogen, it's reduced by oxygen to form water.

Here's the deal: free hydrogen (H2) is reduced relatively by easily by O2 producing energy and water, so if there were any free hydrogen on earth, we could reduce it with oxygen which is readily available in the atmosphere. The problem is, there isn't any free hydrogen, because the earth's gravity is so weak and the mean free path of hydrogen (distance that hydrogen can zip around in the atmosphere without hitting any other molecules) is so long that all free hydrogen in the earth's atmosphere has already been reduced into water or hydrides in the earth's crust or has escaped into space.

That means that, yes, if you want to use hydrogen you have to produce it, which as you correctly surmised means it has to be made available through electrolysis. The energy for electrolysis has to come from existing energy sources. H2 is freed from oxygen, stored, and then recombined in a fuel cell with O2, releasing no more energy than that which was used to separate it in the first place.

That's why I say hydrogen isn't an energy source, but a storage medium. Given how dangerous hydrogen is to transport and store, it's not clear that it's superior to the methods already used. And for those concerned about such things (many people--of whom I am not one) water vapor is a greenhouse gas.

130 posted on 02/06/2006 9:05:56 PM PST by FredZarguna (<font color=black>For the </font><font color=gold>thumb</font>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna
I suspect the current laws of physics say it can't happen, but I wonder if there is a catalyst which could separate H2 from O. Free energy, we could tell the Middle East to take a hike.
Thanks for making it simple for a old man!
131 posted on 02/06/2006 9:25:26 PM PST by investigateworld (Abortion stops a beating heart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: investigateworld
Nice try, but 2H2O already has lower energy than 2H2 and O2 combining. That's why 2H2 + O2 = energy + water. So, again, your physical intuition is quite good. The laws of physics do prohibit it.

Catalysts don't make energy prohibitive chemical reactions happen. What they do is make chemical reactions which have favorable energies but bad reaction kinetics happen more quickly. In English: certain reactions release energy, but they don't happen (or don't happen quickly enough) because they're so complicated. Complicated organic molecules need to be aligned by catalysts so the reacting sites "line-up". Some other chemical reactions require three or more molecules to collide simultaneously; that's unlikely, but a catalyst might capture some of the molecules long enough to reduce the complicated reaction to a two-body collision, which is much more likely. The catalysts don't change the energy part of the equation.

My high school chemistry teacher explained catalysis thus: "two shy people in the presence of alcohol will simply do what comes naturally. " This was 35 years ago. Today she would probably be thrown out of the place, but, uh, she was a nun so she had a lifetime appointment.

We already do have "free" energy. It comes in the form of uranium. We simply don't have the political will to burn it.

132 posted on 02/06/2006 9:54:12 PM PST by FredZarguna (<font color=black>For the </font><font color=gold>thumb</font>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: traviskicks
he is skeptical of findings by the Reason Foundation because of the group's ideological bias

So it is OK for a liberal to be skeptical of scientific skeptics because of their "ideological bias" but.....

...... it is heretical for an AGW skeptic to be skeptical of the hysteria (non-science) because of those people's ideological bias (socialism, gaia worship, anti-human/pro animal).....

133 posted on 03/21/2008 3:09:56 PM PDT by SteamShovel (Global Warming, the New Patriotism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-133 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson