It may not be possible to generate electricity with fusion power in a cost-effective way. For the last 30 years I've been reading that this goal is 10-20 years away. At least you've moved you projection out to 25 years away!
Good article.
Methanol has a better chance whether in the internal combustion engine or in direct methanol fuel cells.
BTW, biodiesel is intriguing....and clean (more so than "normal diesel.)
EBUCK
If you could make the infrastructure supporting petroleum disappear overnight and then consider the cost of reinventing and rebuilding it -- it would seem imposible. So I'm skeptical of hydrogen, but still interested.
I've long felt that hydrogen will make more and more sense the more expensive fossil fuels are. Eventually, as demand increases for a fixed supply of fossil fuels, reserves will begin to deplete to the point where the low-hanging fruit has all been lopped off, and we have nothing left but the stuff that's more expensive to extract and refine. This will drive the price higher. Drive it up high enough, and expensive alternatives will actually become competitive. By that time, fuel efficiency will be in vogue again. It's all supply and demand, basic Econ 101.
What you didn't talk about, however, is the "hidden" environmental cost of fossil fuels. I'm not an environmentalist wacko, but growing up in So Cal, I appreciate that some real costs were added to driving cars (in the form of smog controls and unleaded fuels). I remember when, in the early 70's, the brown smog was so thick and vile that it made your eyes and lungs burn in the summer. Things are much better now then they were then.
Also, aren't they working on renewable methods of extracting hydrogen (such as biomass)? I know that these have not been fully realized, but then neither has fusion.
Otherwise, thanks for your informative post.
Hydrogen is, at present, a pipe dream. Separating it from chemical combination (be it H20, water, or in hydrocarbon form - methane is the main constituent of natural gas) will always use more energy than the burning will produce (this is the first and second laws of thermodynamics). It will eventually be a good, clean secondary source of power - after we find an even cheaper way to generate large amounts of electricity. (Oops, we've know one, it's called nuclear.)
Just in case you didn't know, the Three Laws of Thermodynamics, Simplified:
1.) You can't get ahead. Or, you can't get more energy out of a system than you originally put in. This is called "the conservation of energy". Or, no system can ever be more than 100% efficient.
2.) You can't break even. Or, some energy will always be lost in process. This is called "entropy". Or, no system can ever be as much as 100% efficient.
3.) You can't get out of the game. Or, you can't create negative energy, which is the same as saying you can't go below absolute zero temperature. If you could, you'd be able to violate the first two laws whenever you wanted to.
I'm no engineer, but the problem I have with those who say fuel cell cars won't work is that I see them working. Daimler and Toyota have been at this for years, producing many prototypes, long before the US government and Detroit got involved. I just don't believe the biggest auto companies in the world would be pursuing something that can't work. The switch in a big way is unlikely, however, unless and until oil prices rise enough to make fuel cell prices more attractive and production increases to make economies of scale possible.
In the meantime, I agree we suck the mideast dry.
Actually, I don't believe that is quite true. As stated, the process would require 100 percent efficiency, and I don't believe that to be obtainable.
However, I do think it would be possible to create large scale sun-to-electricity or wind-to-electricity facilities in non-populated areas and pipe or ditch water to them. The water could then be converted to hydrogen and oxygen by electrolysis without the loss of too much power through long distance voltage drops. The two elements could then be shipped to wherever they are needed.
Fuel cells, internal combustion - and other types of engines might be feasible.
Now, if we could just get a source of electricity to destinations without too much voltage drop due to the distance, it might just be feasible to create a car that never needs re-fueling. Just fill up a permanently sealed, heavy gauge fuel system with water; conver the water to hydrogen and oxygen during the night; convert the hydrogen and oxygen back to water as the car is used, and recycle that water again at night. The only thing needed to be added is the electricity at night. Wouldn't that be a "gas"!
Quick explanation. A large electricity plant, of whatever kind, cannot be shut down for so short a period as overnight. So electricity companies have for years been selling cities "street lights" in an attempt to get a few bucks out of this otherwise wasted energy.
I live in a city that has basically banned street lights. It's one of the safest cities in the area (so much for the "security" part of lights). And its wonderful because you can see the stars at night.
So, shut off the street lights. Generate the hydrogen. And at whatever ineficiency that might be, its still better than totally wasting the energy.
Hey there all eco-freaks! Take Physics 101! Reality is a bitch - get educated or shut up.
The only way that hydrogen gereration is possible as an economic alternative to natural gas is to use solar cells by the ocean for its generation. I doubt that it would ever be cheaper than bio-mass sources of methane.
A shallow article ignoring many important points.
Generating hydrogen from hydrocarbons isn't as difficult as you seem to think. See "coal gasification" as one example.
Your information about fuel cells is YEARS out of date.
And I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for development of a successful fusion reactor. They'll develop thin-film multi-junction 40% efficient solar cells long before that ever happens. If you want nuclear, it's going to be fission.
http://www.academicpress.com/epst/biomass.pdf
Of particular interest is the conclusion regarding ethanol production from corn:
"Assuming a net production of 433 liters of fuel per corn hectare and if all automobiles in the United States were fueled with ethanol, then a total of approximately 900 million hectares of cropland would be required to provide the corn feedstock for production. This amount of cropland would equal nearly the total land area of the United States."
"Brazil has been a large producer of ethanol, but has abandoned subsidizing it. Without the subsidy, economic ethanol production is impossible."
So the good news is that we could do it, the bad news is that we would all starve.
Your points are well taken---basically that it is quite expensive. So was whale oil before the advent of large whaling ships, and so was kerosene, then gasoline, before John Rockefeller and his refining process.
If we have learned anything, it is that if MONEY is the ONLY obstacle to something, it isn't much of an obstacle. Already the Saudis and Bahranians are using numerous desalinazation plants---which was "too expensive" when I was younger.
H2 is closer than you think.