Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hydrogen cars hold expensive surprises
The Globe and Mail ^ | Friday, Jul. 18, 2003 | STEPHEN STRAUSS

Posted on 07/18/2003 11:15:37 PM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou

Green-spirited individuals hoping to do their part to save the environment by buying hydrogen-fuelled cars next year are in for expensive and rude surprises, a study by a Canadian and a U.S. scientist says.

Establishing an infrastructure to fuel hydrogen cars, touted by their proponents as a wonder solution to global warming and smog, would cost $5,000 per vehicle, says the study by David Keith, a Canadian atmospheric physicist teaching at Carnegie Mellon University and Alex Farrell of the California Institute of Technology.

Although cars operating on hydrogen fuel cells emit only water vapor, switching to hydrogen would be about 100 times more expensive than simply making present cars less polluting, they say.

Although hydrogen cars would not emit the potent greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, making power plants cleaner burning could achieve the same effect at 1/10 the cost, says the paper published today in the U.S. journal Science.

Many factors conspire to drive up the price of the hydrogen-fuelled vehicles, which the Ford Motor Co. will begin to sell in a limited way in Vancouver next year.

Transporting and storing the difficult-to-contain hydrogen gas is one.

But equally important is dealing with the byproducts formed by the creation of hydrogen, considered a "clean fuel." Hydrogen is currently made as an offshoot of oil and coal refining. But this process creates a huge amount of carbon dioxide.

No one is sure how to keep that carbon dioxide from escaping into the atmosphere and heating up the planet.

"Hydrogen cars should be seen as one of several long-term options, but they make no sense anytime soon," the research paper says.

Prof. Keith was more scathing in an interview.

"My take-home message is that hydrogen cars are to some extent a technological solution in search of a problem. People are attracted to them because they appear to be a magic answer to a whole series of problems. But if you turn the question around and ask, 'What is my problem and what what are reasonably cost-effective solutions,' . . . A hydrogen fuel-cell car is not an early part of any cost-effective solution to any of your problems."

Given this uncertainty, he added that the Canadian support of hydrogen-fuel research, notably at the National Research Centre in Vancouver and through subsidies for hydrogen industries, such as Ballard Power Systems Inc., also in Vancouver, might prove to be the proverbial pig in a poke.

"One of the issues, right or wrong, is Canada betting on a hydrogen horse that is actually going to end up running anywhere? I think one should be very skeptical, despite all the hype."

Defenders of what is sometimes called the "hydrogen economy" said the paper's analysis misses several important points, one being the increase in the cost of gasoline.

"Today, fossil fuels are relatively cheap. When we use up half the supply of the world's oil, the price is going to shoot up. Will that be 2010 or 2020 or 2037? Nobody knows for sure," said Jeremy Rifkin, a Washington-D.C.-based economist and author of the recent book The Hydrogen Economy.

Ron Venter, a University of Toronto engineering professor and a vice-president of the Canadian Hydrogen Association, points out that North American car companies are experimenting with the clean and localized production of hydrogen by using electricity to break down water and thus circumvent the carbon dioxide-storage issue.

Ballard spokesman Mike Rosenberg said his company is aware that the present car and improvements to it are their chief competitors. "But we think we will overtake the internal-combustion engine eventually."



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: carbondioxide; co2; economics; emvironment; energy; energylist; fuelcells; hydrogen; infrastructure
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: norraad
What were the other security reasons surrounding He(he said in a high squeaky voice) ?

I'm not a history buff, but I seem to recall reading or hearing that He wasn't exported for security reasons. I'm hoping someone better versed in the history of the times could confirm this.
41 posted on 07/19/2003 4:15:58 PM PDT by plsvn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: plsvn
From a Wired.com article on current lighter-than-air developments:

Most baby boomers have heard the radio announcer's wail: "Oh the humanity! The humanity!" Some have even seen the film footage of the Hindenburg's crash, which occurred in Lakehurst, New Jersey, on May 6, 1937. Those records of the catastrophe sealed the fate of these airships, even though the Hindenburg fire was an anomaly; hydrogen-lift ships rarely ignited.

Even so, Germany had long been cognizant of the gas' potential for combustion, and began negotiating with the US in the 1920s to import helium, which is 7 percent heavier than hydrogen but has the distinct advantage of not blowing up. (At the time, the US controlled the entire world supply of helium.) By 1937, political tensions in Europe prompted the US to hoard the gas, forcing the Germans to fill the Hindenburg with hydrogen.

Emphasis mine.

42 posted on 07/19/2003 4:37:48 PM PDT by Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Chemist_Geek
ping
43 posted on 07/19/2003 4:41:41 PM PDT by The Energizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
>Don't ask about the by products.<

I think you're right. Producing either of these in quantity has not been known to be all that clean of an event...

Maybe there could be a "clean" way, but til now has been tossed as "not economical".
44 posted on 07/19/2003 8:12:04 PM PDT by Joined2Justify (Smoke screens were/are bought by the Oil/Auto cartel.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Consort
A small hydrogen fuel cell may eventually power homes and get us off the grid.

Yes, but where do you get the hydrogen for that fuel cell?

That's right...from LP (liquid petroleum) gas or natural gas. That's what GE's home fuel cell unit runs on.

45 posted on 07/19/2003 8:21:34 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts
Check this out.

Capstone Microturbines

Reliable, efficient, scalable, fuel flexable, available now, and tons cheaper.

46 posted on 07/20/2003 2:44:55 AM PDT by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
Great – we’ll have clean emission cars, but making the clean fuel will cause massive air pollution at the refinery. Even if we switch to producing hydrogen by electrolysis, the power needed for this will cause more pollution at the generators – the same if we switch to electric cars. People will spend and extra $5,000.00 per car, and be stuck in cities that have hydrogen stations.

47 posted on 07/20/2003 3:10:42 AM PDT by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Source

In an effort to keep the Nazis from using the Hindenburg for military proposes the United States Congress passed the Helium Control Act. This Act made it impossible for the Zeppelin Company to obtain Helium because the United States has the only natural deposits of Helium. This upset Dr. Eckert who got along well the United States government and was openly critical of the Nazi government. There was nothing for him to do; therefore on March 4, 1936 the Hindenburg, inflated with the volatile gas, hydrogen, made its maiden voyage.

48 posted on 07/20/2003 3:19:59 AM PDT by R. Scott
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
I like nuclear power .... I just wish that I had one behind the back yard.

There was a kid somewhere who built a nuclear reactor in a metal shed in his back yard...

Here it is... just found it on Google:

The Radio-Active Boy Scout

The whole story of how he did it is really interesting.

49 posted on 07/20/2003 3:23:35 AM PDT by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: chuckles
"Fires would be the only way to burn up the extra O2 to save whats left of the planet."

No, the proliferation of termites would be unbearable. Currently nature maintains the oxygen content of the air with methane (termite farts).
50 posted on 07/20/2003 3:44:36 AM PDT by dalereed (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Consort
"It's strange that so many people are dissing hydrogen fuel. A small hydrogen fuel cell may eventually power homes and get us off the grid."

Hydrogen is not, and never will be, a "fuel." "Fuel" is something that contains more energy than it costs to create, and until we discover deposits of molecular hydrogen in the ground, H2 will never meet that standard. Hydrogen is a battery, a way of storing up one form of energy for more convenient use later.

The only thing a "hydrogen economy" accomplishes is decoupling energy consumption from energy production—in other words, since any form of energy can be converted economically into hydrogen, and any form of work can, once a hydrogen distribution network is established, be performed economically with hydrogen, a hydrogen economy lets us pick the most efficient methods of both production and consumption.

The dirty secret, though, is that far and away the most efficient method of hydrogen production is nuclear power. Now I, for one, am 100% behind nuclear power, so when people say "hydrogen" I say "bring it on!" Your typical hydrogen enthusiast, however, hates nukes even more than he hates fossil fuels, so I'm really at a loss to explain hydrogen's popularity.

51 posted on 07/20/2003 7:53:56 PM PDT by Fabozz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
"I like nuclear power .... I just wish that I had one behind the back yard."

Nah, no point. Although the cancer-preventative effects of low-level radioactive exposure—demonstrated by medical studies on airline crews and Denver residents—are highly desirable, nuclear plants simply don't produce enough radioactivity. Your typical nuclear plant releases less radiation than granite buildings like the U.S. and Texas Capitols.

So there's no upside to living next to a nuke plant, and plenty of downside—you'd routinely have to clean the detritus of leftist anti-nuke protesters out of your yard. Who wants that hassle?

52 posted on 07/20/2003 8:02:18 PM PDT by Fabozz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fabozz
It will be a "fuel" if enough people say it's a "fuel." The government and industry say to it as a fuel. It's probably a fuel.
53 posted on 07/20/2003 8:12:05 PM PDT by Consort
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Consort
Popular opinion, policital gamesmanship and slick corporate marketing do not alter the Laws of Thermodynamics. Until a source of ready-to-use molecular hydrogen is discovered, the energy spent to produce H2 plus the energy value of the feedstock will always be greater than the energy available through consuming H2. This is a simple and unalterable fact, one which you can confirm with the help of any first-semester Physics textbook in existence.

The greenies say hydrogen is a fuel because without promising (falsely) the masses a replacement for gasoline to run their cars, the "watermelon" agenda would be dead on arrival. The government says hydrogen is a fuel because this country must invest more in nuclear power, and hydrogen is the "Trojan horse" that will slip nukes past the greenies. And corporations like Ballard Power say hydrogen is a fuel because it attracts big-bucks investment. Those entities' press releases notwithstanding, hydrogen will always be just a bookkeeping trick that shuffles energy from one column to another, losing a little along the way.

54 posted on 07/20/2003 8:53:46 PM PDT by Fabozz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Fabozz
Your typical nuclear plant releases less radiation than granite buildings like the U.S. and Texas Capitols.

So there's no upside to living next to a nuke plant, and plenty of downside—you'd routinely have to clean the detritus of leftist anti-nuke protesters out of your yard. Who wants that hassle ?

In TEXAS ? I'd LOVE to see a pack of protestors step on my front lawn ....
"I was in fear for my life and my property, judge .... had to shoot them all."

Besides ... being NEXT to the plant means that short of a nuclear attack the power will ALWAYS be on :)

55 posted on 07/21/2003 12:00:02 AM PDT by Centurion2000 (We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Joined2Justify
Thanks for the link. I have been following Tom Beardon's MEG generator for several years now at his website There is more to this stuff then people want to admit.
56 posted on 07/21/2003 6:54:10 AM PDT by forester (Reduce paperwork -- put foresters back in the forest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Hydrogen Exonerated in Hindenburg Disaster
57 posted on 07/21/2003 7:03:02 AM PDT by jla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
A friend of mine was working on a high-efficiency carburetor and stumbled onto a way to convert gasoline and water into hydrogen gas and CO2. Too bad CO2 is considered a pollutant, but this can be minimized by using methanol instead of gasoline. His patent is here. His converted auto will probably never make it to market since the auto companies are developing their own gasoline reformers, except that they are using a catalyst since they are too stupid to do it with an atomizer and a little heat. This solution is really nice since there is no stored H2, it is simply produced as needed. It also nearly doubles fuel efficiency since the mix is 1 part water to 1 part gas. I say nearly since you lose something like 15% horsepower. My friend is now trying to sell it as a H2 feeder for fuel cells since they seem to be all the rage, but good luck finding a fuel cell that can even power a golf cart. Maybe it'll work well for powering homes or neighborhoods.
58 posted on 07/21/2003 12:45:51 PM PDT by sixmil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bob
By 1937, political tensions in Europe prompted the US to hoard the gas, forcing the Germans to fill the Hindenburg with hydrogen.

Thanks Bob for posting this confirmation. A few of my brain cells apparently still work at recalling this sort of stuff!
59 posted on 07/22/2003 9:21:40 PM PDT by plsvn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Bon mots
Enjoyed that artice - very interesting!!!
60 posted on 07/23/2003 2:14:06 PM PDT by adam_az (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson