4 Responses

1. When Secretary of Energy Steve Chu discussed hydrogen in this article ( http://www.technologyreview.com/business/22651/?nlid=2027 see pg2 ) he described 4 obstacles that have since been called the 4 miracles:

   1 “we get most of our hydrogen from […natural…] gas” but here is a better break down:
   “…48% of hydrogen production (for industrial processes) is from natural gas, 30% is from oil, 18% is from coal, and 4% is from electrolysis.” http://peswiki.com/index.php/PowerPedia:Hydrogen You can see that almost 100% is from fossil fuels. For hydrogen to be an alternative fuel it would have to be made from splitting water. Neither the energy or cost economics are there for this technology. It costs more to split water than we get back as energy on the other end. It is only presently done in lab experiments and when ultra pure hydrogen is required.

   2 “for transportation, we don’t have a good storage mechanism yet.” Compressing hydrogen takes energy. Liquefying it takes more. Combining it with metals or other chemicals involves other losses in the energy transfer.

   3 & 4 “The fuel cells aren’t there yet, and the distribution infrastructure isn’t there yet.” We can make fuel cells but we can’t make them with cheap materials that can compete with alternatives. Unlike electricity with is everywhere hydrogen distributing safely requires a completely new infrastructure to be built from the ground up.

   Additionally hydrogen requires an entirely new set of safety considerations as it burns in the primarily ultraviolet spectra. It is hard to see (especially in daylight) and hard to feel any heat until you contact the flame. This has to compete with other technologies that are not so dangerous.

   Here is an article that discusses the “4 miracles” but the first counter ignores the use of fossil fuels for other needs than transportation. http://energyoutlook.blogspot.com/2009/05/how-many-miracles.html

   The term “hydrogen economy” was first used by John Bockris in a talk he gave in 1970: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bockris It has been used to promote the concept of using hydrogen for transportation as well as its present primary uses in making ammonia and refining petroleum. It would however require using fossil fuels to make hydrogen in any reasonable scale to power the equivalent of our present transportation fleet. A hydrogen economy would therefore not necessarily be “alternative,” or even “renewable,” “sustainable,” or practical.

2. here’s food for thought how about a compressed air powered economy? see 2nd link.

3. First of all for a hydrogen economy to become a reality, there has to be a real not manufactured shortage of fuel resources. Peak Oil today- is a myth. Might occur in the future? Possibly, but those who are invested in the current energy technologies have to see the end of the line of the conventional fuels first. When that occurs, it will only take a month for the new fuel alternative infrastructure and distribution to be put online. Anything inovationwise is going to have to go through those conventional fuel interests first, there is no room for an upstart. That is why total electric cars like the GM EV-1 are not available and will not be available.

   The hydrogen economy is just going to be the economy of a nation running on hydrogen as a fuel instead of petroleum.

4. IQ levels have to drop. Hydrogen is not a fuel source. There are no wells of hydrogen to tap into. Hydrogen has to be made. Right now it’s made mostly from cracking natural gas. So even a Hydrogen economy will really based on fossil fuels.