Of course there are trade-offs. And, most government-mandated recycling may indeed not make economic sense. However, I'm still looking for data to back up your claim that recycling has a net environmental cost -- that it does more harm than good to the environment.
You seem to have an inexhaustible well of negativity about the "hydrogen economy." Unfortunately, you are not very well read on the subject and you have no practical experience. Yes, hydrogen is not a true energy source, but a energy storage element. Are there technical problems to be solved? yes.
You are not even asking the right questions. The real question is "can hydrogen find a place in reducing the dependence of the United States on carbon based fuels?" The answer of course is yes. Two technical innovations which are presently practical, yet are not contemplated by you nor the author of this hit piece are: Catalyzed hydrogen gas storage, and geothermal electrical generation (think Yellowstone).
Another point of the discussion must include that virtually every hydrogen energy solution is in the prototype stage. To compare hydrogen energy solutions on the experimental scale with this carbon fuel infrastructure misses the point. Economies of scale will solve many of the "problems" so craftily raised by this article. Trying to set yourself up as some kind of expert who knows the real problems of hydrogen, as opposed to the engineers and experimenters who are making this goal a reality, solves nothing.
Your attitude sums up a huge part of the problem - how does one enlist the average investor and consumer to do things which they have not done before? Arguments such as those as you are making remind me of city slickers who eat ice cream every day, yet view dairies as sources of pollution, and have never milked a guernsey, much less cleaned out the barn.
You seem to have an inexhaustible well of negativity about the "hydrogen economy." No. What I have is an inexhaustible well of reality and perspective about the "hydrogen economy". But I can understand how a starry eyed pie in the sky hydrogen zealot might confuse that for pessimism.
Unfortunately, you are not very well read on the subject and you have no practical experience.
Actually, I do, and I have. And I also don't just take everything I hear from the various alternative energy promoters at face value. I actually bother to critically examine their claims and thereby avoid confusing optimistic possibilities for actual probabilities.
The real question is "can hydrogen find a place in reducing the dependence of the United States on carbon based fuels?" The answer of course is yes.
Please do me the common courtesy of reading some of my other posts before you climb up on your high horse and try to judge me. If you'd done that, you would have seen me say in this very thread:
Now don't get me wrong; hydrogen does have a place in a post petroleum economy, but not by itself. The real post petroleum world will see a much wider variety of energy sources in use. Right now we depend almost entirely on the big three fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. If we do things right, we will see many different renewable fuels, each being used where it is most useful. That means hydrogen, but it also includes biodiesel, ethanol, wind, photovoltaic, nuclear, and other energy sources.
As an aside, you're incorrectly stating our current energy problems. You seem to think the only goal is getting away from carbon based fuels. That is not correct or complete. Carbon based fuels are fine so long as they are part of a carbon neutral or carbon negative energy flowpath. And energy independence is also a big part of the equation.
Two technical innovations which are presently practical, yet are not contemplated by you nor the author of this hit piece are: Catalyzed hydrogen gas storage, and geothermal electrical generation (think Yellowstone).
Catalyzed hydrogen gas storage: Actually, we have covered this earlier in this thread. Go back and look. Catalyzed hydrogen storage is promoted as a method of getting around liquid hydrogen's very poor volume energy density. However, it introduces additional inefficiencies into the hydrogen energy flowpath because it adds the additional step of combining the hydrogen into the storage medium. If you are using a storage medium that is not recharged with hydrogen, then the used storage medium is nothing more than another waste byproduct, much like carbon dioxide is for the current "hydrocarbon economy". And besides that, the hydrogen energy flowpath already has enough inefficiencies that it really doesn't need any more. Remember: inefficiencies are multiplicative.
Geothermal electrical generation: Congratulations! You've just discovered yet another of the many many ways electricity can be generated to produce hydrogen. But that's all you've brought up. Geothermal power is just another geographically limited energy source. I'm also not sure you understand how much electricity can be practically extracted from geothermal sources. Did you know that the majority of existing geothermal energy projects do not generate electricity, but rather are used for steam heating local residences? Which brings up another problem for geothermal electrical generation: what about all the people who don't live near geothermal hot spots?
Another point of the discussion must include that virtually every hydrogen energy solution is in the prototype stage.
And they've been in the "prototype stage" for decades. I don't know enough about you to know if you're old enough to remember the 60's, but people have been pushing hydrogen as the "super fuel of the future" since before then. The very fact that hydrogen hasn't yet made any real impact shows just how many hurdles need to be overcome before it's really useful.
To compare hydrogen energy solutions on the experimental scale with this carbon fuel infrastructure misses the point.
No. People are promoting hydrogen as the end all and be all replacement of hydrocarbon fuels, so comparing the two doesn't miss the point; it is the point.
Hydrogen doesn't just compare badly with fossil fuels. It also fares poorly when compared with other alternative fuels.
A good example is BioDiesel. The diesel engine has been around for more than a century. It was originally invented to run on farmed fuels like peanut oil. Hydrogen, at best, is carbon neutral unless it comes from fossil fuel sources, in which case it is a massive carbon source (which kind of defeats the purpose). Yet BioDiesel is a carbon sink; it pulls more carbon from the air to make than it puts into the air when burned. Better yet, BioDiesel actually works, and works today. It is directly compatible with our existing fossil fuel infrastructure.
Economies of scale will solve many of the "problems" so craftily raised by this article.
Really? Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But in reality, you don't really know. Nobody does. But instead of admitting your ignorance and hope, you try to pass off your vague hope in the magic "economy of scale" solving the problems of hydrogen fuel as a fact. Well, the magic of "economies of scale" was also supposed to provide everyone with a flying car by now, and they aren't around either.
Trying to set yourself up as some kind of expert who knows the real problems of hydrogen, as opposed to the engineers and experimenters who are making this goal a reality, solves nothing.
You really have no idea who you're talking to, do you?
And as to making the "hydrogen economy" a reality? Yes, there has been a little progress. But nothing yet that definitively proves the endpoint feasibility of using hydrogen as a fuel. And nothing that proves hydrogen to be any better (or even a little better) than other alternative energy solutions.
Your attitude sums up a huge part of the problem - how does one enlist the average investor and consumer to do things which they have not done before?
Oh please. more like "how does one snooker the average sucker into pumping money into a rat hole of pipe dreams and promises".
There is a lot of flim-flam surrounding the current promotion of the "hydrogen economy". Not a little of it is coming from the fossil fuel companies because they know that unless someone brilliant somehow manages to magically overcome a lot of the many massive stumbling blocks to producing, storing, and transporting clean hydrogen, the majority of hydrogen will come from their dirty fossil sources. And they know that will mean greater dependence on their fossil fuels. And more pollution too, but they don't really bother themselves about that.
There are other, better alternative energy sources out there that work and work today. So long as we keep putting all our eggs into the hydrogen basket, we are making a high risk gamble with our economy and society with no real guarantee of any payoff.
Arguments such as those as you are making remind me of city slickers who eat ice cream every day, yet view dairies as sources of pollution, and have never milked a guernsey, much less cleaned out the barn.
Whatever. This just shows how quick you are to jump to baseless, unfounded, and incorrect conclusions about people. Just like you have jumped to unfounded, baseless, and wrong conclusions about hydrogen as a fuel.
