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."
This thread is not quite what my list is all about. It's sort of engineering. I don't know if there's an "alternative energy" ping list out there, or who might be active in this stuff.
No problem. I have a list of who holds ping lists and you were the closest to the subject. Thanks for answering the ping though.
I did a search on "alternative energy" and found a couple of recent threads. You might find some live ones by looking them over.
At any rate, growing scarcity of available oil, whenever that comes about, is the only sensible reason to try to switch to hydrogen as a vehicle fuel. CO2 emissions aren't.
Re: setting a minimum speed of 75 mph
HEMI here I come!
LOL! Great catch!
BTTT!!!!!!
If it doesn't have a big booming gasoline powered V8 engine, I won't drive it!
"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."
---
"Attacking character instead of their arguments AGAIN!"
Laughable when you consider the Sierra Clubs ideological bias.
"What happens when one of these hydrogen cars wraps around a telephone pole,"
Everyone dies. I think they are more dangerous than gasoline powered cars, but then gasoline powered cars are pretty dangerous themselves. Hydrogen is extremely explosive, and the high electric currents could fry you as well.
An environmental group claiming the republican plan for the environment is no good.
What a surprise! /sarcasm
Hydrogen can be produced in a central location and the pollutions can be handled on location.
The car's pollutions are not centralized. The automobiles are hundreds of million of individual polluting power plants. Creating a hydrogen car and moving the polluting power plant out of garages is a great idea.
Yes, we will still need energy to create the Hydrogen, but with hydrogen we don’t have to sit in traffic breathing exhaust.
An environmental group claiming the republican plan for the environment is no good.
What a surprise! /sarcasm
Hydrogen can be produced in a central location and the pollutions can be handled on location.
The car's pollutions are not centralized. The automobiles are hundreds of million of individual polluting power plants. Creating a hydrogen car and moving the polluting power plant out of garages is a great idea.
Yes, we will still need energy to create the Hydrogen, but with hydrogen we don’t have to sit in traffic breathing exhaust.
Have you ever seen a hydrogen fire? Of course you haven't because you can't see it burning you, you can only feel your skin turning to a krisp! The danged stuff is entirely too unstable, and volitile!!!
Plus, you can only go about 50 miles max on a fillup and I seriously doubt they're gonna put filling stations every 40-50 miles along Hwy 50 across NV, unless they can combine them with whore houses and casinos... Get offa this stupid Schwarzenrenegger pipe dream of a "Hydrogen Highway" and apply you mind to something feasible... Puuleeze!!!
Are you kiddin me? Presidents, Governors and many other political executives are RIGHTLY judged at the end of their first 100 days, their first year and each year thereafter!!!
I've seen enough damaging action to last a lifetime in the Sierra-Nevada CONservacancy alone, let alone another truck load of socialistic crappola!!!
The only thing he's good for is entertainment value from what I've seen. I'm sorry it's going to take you longer to see it.
After reading the Reason report, I wonder about the weight of these vehicles. It said a 6500 lb. Hummer would be about 1000 lbs heavier if equipped for hydrogen (roughly 15%). That's got to have a negative impact (i.e. cost more) in maintenance of highways, etc.
This thing has not been thought out. It is just another push to get taxpayer money to support their folly, with the help of junk-science.
It is interesting reading the comments of the believers in the free lunch. It takes 1.5 times more energy to split the water molecule than the resulting energy produced. All things being equal, I imagine the Arnold backers will look to the gubmint to make up the difference.
And the crooks running the companies who will benefit are lined up in Sacramento (and throughout the country) to grab taxpayer dollars.
All in the name of "progress", "oil independence", and "sovereignty"... yeah, right!
It seems to me that if one must find alternatives to crude oil, biodiesel would be more practical than creating hydrogen.
Hydrogen cannot be seriously considered a fuel when it takes more energy to create it than it produces. Which it ALWAYS will.
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.