In general, science and technology "reporting" is abyssmal. For energy and fuels policy, you then combine that reporting with business/economics reporting (another area of reportial non-expertise) and you've got the prescription for some real nonsense in print.
Indeed. As noted above, reporter Brad Lemly simply brushes over some major issues, such as the fact that Hydrogen is simply a storage medium, and must be generated.
Even more damning is this little gem from Lovins: Imagine, he says, a high-tech, computer-dependent operation that typically might fork over $1 million annually to keep standby generators humming to ensure constant power. Far better, says Lovins, for that plant to install an on-site methane reformer and a fuel cell.
This has two big problems.
First, he's assuming that these standby diesels are kept running. They're not: an UPS generally consists of a big enough battery/capacitor to maintain power supplies until the diesels can be brought up.
But if we posit that he's correct, it's even worse for his case. Running diesel generators to create hydrogen results in less useable energy than the diesel fuel would have provided in the first place! Rather than leasing hydro-cars to the employees, it'd be more efficient to give them diesel powered cars.
If all of Lovins' reasoning is this sound....
Yeah, but its pretty pedantic and boring. I got very weary of drawing control volumes and figuring out flows across boundaries. I'm a statistical mechanics kind of person myself...