Hydrogen Cars: NY Times Buries Critical Articles
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 04.29.07
Wind Turbines and Hydrogen cars, the match made in heaven and the most deceptive and manipulative picture in the New York Times. It is one of a series of hydrogen vehicles ogled in the the paper today. What is really fascinating is the editorial bias shown by the print editors, who chose not to run two very well written articles, available online, that point out the problems with hydrogen. Jim Motavalli writes a Q and A that explains where hydrogen now comes from (Natural Gas) and how it is shipped (with great difficulty) and how ultimately the only way to make it efficiently is with nuclear power, which Amory Lovins describes as "aspirational." ::New York Times
Far more devastating is Don Sherman's " At Milepost 1 on the Hydrogen Highway"
Honda FCX, (Mikes earlier coverage here)
Covering much of the same ground as Jim Motavalli but in greater detail:
"Hydrogen proponents promise a future of placid (and carbon-free) travel punctuated by occasional stops to replenish our tanks as conveniently as we fill them today. They champion an America laced by a hydrogen highway, dotted with service stations that offer safe, affordable refueling. Perhaps clean restrooms will be part of that future, too."
However there are a couple of small problems. Of the fifty million tons of hydrogen produced annually, fully a quarter of it is used to refine oil, and as the quality of crude oil deteriorates, it needs more hydrogen.
95% of the hydrogen made in the United States is created from natural gas, through a process called steam reforming, which creates 350 million tons of carbon dioxide per year.
Hydrogen does not travel or store well because its small molecule can leak out of the smallest fissure, and special pipes are needed- "While it is possible to deliver hydrogen in pipes used for natural gas, a well-known risk is hydrogen embrittlement — the tendency of hydrogen atoms to infiltrate the surface of welded or heat-treated steel, which can result in cracks and leaks."
The Bush Administration's goal of replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen will require 90 million tons of it a year. "Electricity from solar cells and wind turbines can also be used to electrolyze water to hydrogen and oxygen without undesirable byproducts, though it would be a considerable undertaking. The Energy Department estimates that meeting the country’s needs would require more than 160,000 two-megawatt wind turbines."
Leaving nuclear power the only option. "The Energy Department is promoting a Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative aimed at demonstrating the commercial feasibility of new nuclear plants that produce hydrogen using high-temperature-electrolysis processes. Such methods are under study in national laboratories. The Energy Department expects that the most promising approaches will be ready for commercial-scale demonstrations by 2020."
Don Sherman tries to end on a positive note- "Americans can take solace in this: The journey to a clean, secure and possibly more efficient future has begun." but it doesn't ring true. His article clearly demonstrates that hydrogen is really nothing more than an expensive nuclear "energy carrier."
We "environmentalists" go gaga over every shiny new car, and the New York "All the news that's fit to print" Times deems two articles that lay out the problems not fit to print on paper. Times readers deserve better. ::New York Times
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Metal Alloy Could Make Hydrogen Storage in Cars 60% Lighter Than Batteries
- Honda FC Sport Concept: So Funky it's Actually Cool, or Just Plain Funky Ugly!
- Make Cars Green: Too Little Too Late?
- The US Should Be Denmark: Tom Friedman on Greening the Economy
In other words: By the time Hydrogen cars become feasible, we will all be driving electric or hybrid or E100 cars.
Experimenting is nice but it is fairly clear that that will probably never be in regular use...
We can also think in terms of a slowly evolving "transportation eco-system", where, over a half-century, public transit systems become more dense and dispersed and interlinked, allowing a reduction in the total private fleet (especially of big honking vehicles) which then enables rolling over of some of the existing hydrogen production capacity from gasoline production to direct H2 fuel uses.
Not mentioned is where the rest of the exisitng H2 production ends up. Much of it goes for petrochemical production, which in turn goes to the transportation supply chain.
Also conveniently ignored is the immense potential for using geothermal energy to produce hydrogen.
I'm not a big fan of Hydrogen technology, but it does bother me slightly that people are so prepared to completely write it off on the basis that it needs nuclear energy to become efficient.
I realise this is a somewhat inflammatory thing to be writing on what's essentially an environmentalist webpage, but I've had to write an essay recently on the potential for nuclear power re: greenhouse gas problem and it's actually a very strong candidate. Actually do some research. Present generation nuclear power plants suck, but wind turbines ten years ago sucked and look at where they are now. I'm not saying that new nuclear plants should be scattered far and wide but I think they should be actively researched as replacements for existing coal derived base load generation. We are a long way from not needing generation capacity with a long term storage medium, and not everywhere has access to Hydro.
I'm not saying nuclear should be introduced, it'd just be good if there was a bit more self education on the issue rather than knee-jerk rejection of anything associated with it. If nothing else it would allow educated arguments against its introduction which would do something to dispel the myth that the only reason it's not widely used now is "damn hippies".
What about the electrolysis method the Norwegians use? On Discovery's Future Car it stated that they have found a way to make it efficient. Any information on this?
They also have the Hydrogen highway over there that stretches across the whole country.
Buddy, you have no scientific training and it is painfully obvious.
The use of hydrogen as an energy storage medium has its own benefits. The potential to decentralize the fuel source is another benefit with the low cost to switch the power plant as the end usage becomes standardized to electric.
Why you are an idiot Lloyd Alter, in one point, is the ability to produce hydrogen from banks of Algae using fibre optics.