[Spirochete]

This, as should be obvious, is economic insanity.

So why all the bandwith and font to debunk such a preposterous scheme?

Hydrogen naysayers are getting louder and shriller these days.

[theBuckwheat]

Hydrogen fuel means more coal power plants. It also means more nuclear plants as well. In any case, it means abandoning at least a portion of the capital and infrastructure base of the petroleum-based fuels that has been built and sustained for generations. This means that new infrastructure will have to be built and in the case of nuclear plants, it may be a decade from the time the capital is committed until the very first penny of return on that capital is earned. Well, ten years is a very long time for anyone to commit their capital.

A lot of things can happen in ten years. New inventions that make the one you invested in nine years ago obsolete, a new and rabid idea could be sweeping through the environmentalist community or new legal theories could be yearning for their first real test in court. Any of a number of things could just destroy your investment. So, why bother? Or, if you want me to bother, if you want me to invest, you'll have to set the potential return high enough to compensate me for the tremendous risk I could be taking.

After all, I could just buy a 10 year US Government bond and not worry at all.

But, if you want to have your hydrogen power, you'll have to find somewhere to get the raw energy to generate it. And that amount of raw energy will have to exceed the amount of energy that is presently being burned in oil that you propose to replace. Hello, is anyone home?

A nuclear plant, that is one big enough to justify the costly studies and approvals, not to mention to justify fighting for years in court. One that can also justify the small army of private, machine-gun toting guards. One that can justify having full staff and security operating from the second that nuclear fuel has been ordered, and for as long as the plant remains a radioactive hazard. A plant of this size might cost over $10 billion when finished in ten years.

That amount of capital is immense to tie up for ten years. How many biotech firms could we fund with $1 billion in venture funding every year for ten years? How many other uses do we have for those funds? We cannot know what we will not have invented when we put such a giant drag on our available capital so as to fund upwards of one hundred new nuclear plants, A trillion dollars for ten years is what it will take for the nuclear plants necessary to replace gasoline with hydrogen fuel.

And nobody has yet speculated what the fuel might cost when we are all done.

[norwaypinesavage]

The author makes some good points. However, there are equally good points that argue against ethanol. Some of these include: 1)Not enough agricultural product is available
2)It's not east to ship in pipelines
3) Can't be used in older vehicles
4) Energy density half that of petrofuel
5) Takes nearly as much energy to produce as is obtained
etc. This is clearly a one sided view.

[theBuckwheat]

Engineer Zubrin was doing just fine with his fact filled article until he swerved into economics, where he just fell into his area of incompetence.

Even the brightest of people cannot allow a free market and free people to just make up their free minds and solve their own person issues in personal ways. Bright people especially find it impossible to believe that the self-organizing chaos of a free market outperforms a neat and well credentialed central plan far more often than not. Best of all, it does it peacefully, without having to resort to the implied use of armed government agents (which is what every single use of government regulation, intervention or law implies) or tax subsidies that only can originate by sending more armed agents out to collect money from perfect strangers who happen to qualify as "taxpayers".

There is yet to be a really better all around fuel source for motor vehicles (autos, trucks and aircraft) than liquid fuels like kerosene, gasoline and diesel. We have generations of experience in the chemistry, the transport, the refining, the engineering, the design and the repair of equipment for handing and using them. This experience counts for a lot, and it has counted for nothing in the rush to find alternates.

We have in our hands and lands more than plentiful sources of hydrocarbons that could be converted into these fuels at a cost that is not much higher than the market price today of crude oil.

This is the area we should be concentrating our efforts on, not on the tax-advantaged conversion of corn to a tempermental new liquid fuel

But let the market decide. When government fixates on a particular technology, it precludes and crowds out viable alternatives. Those alternatives include converting coal to conventional liquid fuels, or even converting turkey offal and sewage sludge into a liquid hydrocarbon that can be refined into conventional fuels.

Enviros are all atwitter about "sustainable" ethanol, a fuel that hardly breaks even in net energy production. What a crock of organic waste. They would rather plow up millions of acres of farmland than a few thousand acres of ANWAR!

[oneolcop]

But, but, but you mean we all won't be drinkin' that free Bubble-up and eatin' that rainbow stew?

[traviskicks]

'Hydrogen highway' bad route, group says; Alternative fuel championed by governor flawed
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1284737/posts?page=1

[Doomonyou]

Ya learn something everyday around this place.

[kidd]

As a former research engineer in fuel cells, I can vouch for most of this article.

The author fails to mention that phosphoric-acid fuel cells have enjoyed moderate success in certain stationary applications, where a reformer can be used to convert a natural gas fuel to hydrogen.

However, he is correct about mobile applications. He also didn't mention their poor ability to respond to a sudden need for power, and that a fuel cell probably will not last more than 5 years. Not to mention the consequences of an accident involving hydrogen gas.

[tubebender]

From this mornings local paper... Schatz Center readies hydrogen fuel station

[Sender]

Thank you for posting this. I have long thought that most of the "wonder solutions" proposed by the alternative fuel eco-organizations must be smoke and mirrors.

There are only so many ready-to-use energy sources found on this planet. Those that can readily and efficiently be burned are oil, coal and wood.

Alcohol is a possibility but far from perfect, as even the eco-worshippers are starting to realize that big oil would only be replaced by big corn.

Almost everything else is simply inefficient. There are still thousands of people hoping for all-electric, battery-powered cars. All this electricity would require either burning a whole lot of fossil fuels or a lot more nuclear power plants, not to mention the likelihood of future electro-cars turning into flaming Dell laptops by the side of the road or electrocuting rescue workers and garage mechanics with their high energy density. The article you posted blows holes in the promise of cheap, plentiful hydrogen. Solar cars are basically balsa wood, carbon fiber and bicycle wheels.

Truthfully, the best thing we can do is to make an immediate effort to use oil more efficiently, make more efficient gas and diesel engines, and exploit non-OPEC sources of oil while we continue to look for workable improvements.

There ain't no perpetual motion machine.

[Wonder Warthog]

"As hydrogen diffuses into metals, it also embrittles them, causing deterioration of pipelines, valves, fittings, and storage tanks used throughout the entire distribution system. These would all have to be constantly monitored and regularly inspected, tested, and replaced. Otherwise the distribution system would become a continuous source of catastrophes."

Lie. I've rebutted this so many times I'm tired of doing so. I quit reading at this point.

[darth]

I remember the hell we went through with the 17 inch disconnect on the Space Shuttle trying to stop hydrogen leaking from faulty seals. If we had that much trouble with Space Shuttle seals how is Bubba down at the gas station gonna deal with them? H2 really is a tricky beast. We have plenty of near term solutions such as conservation, diesel/electric hybrids, diesel from coal, etc. Methane is incredibly abundant in methane hydrates...a longer term solution.

[RobRoy]

>>This could most efficiently be done simply by mandating ...<<

Mandating?

No thank you.

[dgallo51]

I don't believe Hydrogen's best application to be in automotive, but rather as a source of industrial power secure from a centralized power grid.

This U of M experiment is only a small lab experiment, but I would keep eyes wide open for any commercialization attempts at this process.

U of M researchers invent 'flashy' new process to turn soy oil, glucose into hydrogen

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/uom-uom103006.php

[BuffaloJack]

There is no end to socialist hoaxes.
Global warming.
Global Cooling.
Ozone holes.
CO2 is a Green House Gas.
Methane is a Green House Gas.
Recycling.

[ozzymandus]

So if all these alternative fuels are so great, why aren't some clever private sector investors making a fortune off them??

[tcrlaf]

bump

[timer]

Robert Zubrin is the genius who first hit on the idea of using local martian resources for a fueled return trip from mars, instead of lugging it all the way from earth. As he put it, did Lewis and Clarke take all their needed supplies with them for 2 years, or live off the land?

Great post, a SLAM DUNK, exposing the idiots at the DOE and the good old boy network that feeds off of public ignorance. MEG anyone?

[Leatherneck_MT]

I'm certainly glad that men like Henry Ford didn't listen to people who said "It's impossible".

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Great post!