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."
I saw their 'answer' and thought, this is a libertarian magazine?!?!
How about we leave people's cars alone and let the market do the talking!?!? Even the socialist KRAUTS don't have speed limits!
I am for market-based innovation--NOT government funding for it. Hydrogen is nothing but a huge government program waiting to happen.
You got dat right BUMP!
Oh, that would make sense that just the people living near the hundreds of new power plants that need to be built to handle hydrogen will suffer from the exhaust, because of course they deserve to suck fumes more than the drivers themselves...oh, wait, we can't build those power plants, because the envirowusses don't want those, either. /sarcasm
Let the market handle the lifting and stay away from government-imposed 'solutions' like hydrogen.
bttt
----------------------- "Something I have come across on the internet is the Interstate Traveler Project. It combines Maglev rail travel with utility transportation (i.e. water, natural gas, electricity, fiber optics, high temperature superconducting cable, hydrogen, etc.). The entire length of the rail system is covered with solar power panels (each mile of rail producing about 844,800 watts of electricity per hour at peak time). Meaning that a 100 mile long installation supporting 8.4 million square feet of solar cells would generates about 84 megawatts per hour peak time. Additionally, the rail system can be used for producing hydrogen (using utility substations) and clean water. A rail the length of 100 miles would produce over 33,000 kg of hydrogen per hour at peak time, the energy equivalent of about 33,000 gallons of gasoline." (posted by CellPhoneSurfer in #47)
-----------------------
--Boot Hill
All you dreamers have got to get off the acid and stop havin flashbacks of "back to the future!" Puuleese!!!
I know! I was as disappointed as I was to see FReepers who avow themselves to be "Conservatives," cheering a Schwarzenegger/Kennedy to become a replacement for a Gray Davis/Jerry Brown!!!
This is completely out of character for "Reason" mag!!!
Is conservatism losing it's collective mind these days???
It certainly is losing it's consistency in some people's minds!!!
I know... It's like too many people are doing an "Art Bell" and switching off any learning they ever had and switching to some supersillyus envirowhacko belief system, or something! It's painfull to watch otherwise intelligent FReepers suck into some of this dubious mythology!!!
I picked up a couple of old copies of Reason and found it to be interesting but not what I'd consider right-leaning libertarianism (they seem to accept pretty commonly articles from leftists who would use the feds to enforce 'rights'). On the other hand, their commentary didn't seem annoyingly doctrinaire, which National Review and Weekly Standard can become. As a result, while Reason is not my kind of libertarianism exactly, I'd say that it was nonetheless more worth reading than crap like USnooze or NewsWeak.
And consistency on FR is pretty uncommon. It's hard to be perfectly consistent with so much information and situational ethics in play, although it sure would be nice if some people were reflexively Constitutional conservatives instead of reflexively GOP party hacks.
I thought biodiesel included anything that might qualify as a fuel, like recycled vegetable cooking oil. But getting back to the point--why should GOVERNMENT do it, even if it is 'good' and 'economical' and 'pollutes less,' if the market won't?!?! Let the market decide what it wants!
Oh! I fully agree! On both your replies. I must state again that all the recycled vegetable cooking oil added to all the biomess produced by all the airable land in the nation would supply approximately a month and a day of the current demand for fuel in this nation.
But it's pointless to argue with the "True Believers!" They fixate on some vague concept like Art Bell, or GovernMental EnvironMentalists and will NOT be talked out of it, no matter what's bogus, or pure bunk!!! And they go on, and on... and on and on!!!
So called "Conservatives" who aren't firmly anchored in constitutional principles, just drift from pillar to post with the whim of the multitudes, chasing after popular celebrities as their saviors.
I say... Never fall in love with a politician, or even a celebrity trying to act like one... They'll break your heart everytime!!!
I shy away from the unnaturally muscled. I prefer the nerdy types. Pocket protectors welcome.
Eeee Gads!!! What kinda pocket pertecters you tawlkin about? (snort!)
Very true, but he seems to be losing his focus rather badly.
Glow in the dark ones!
I have some of those in storage along with my slide rules....
Oh you sly dog you. You know there is a picture of me in the freeper photo album.
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.