« Google validates one of my bets | Main | Rainy day activities with the kids »
March 8, 2005
The Hydrogen economy could kill us all
I have been uncomfortable for some time with all the hype around the "hydrogen economy". Limitless fuel with no damage to the environment. Sounds too good to be true. Well I have found a guy: MagneGas who may be a whacko, but has some astounding claims about creating hydrogen from a regeneration process (like Natural gas the most commonly cited source). Check this out:
"We recall that the use of hydrogen as fuel does resolve the environmental problems of fossil fuels due to excessive emissions of carcinogenic substances and carbon dioxide. However, the combustion of hydrogen originating from regeneration processes (e.g., from natural gas) implies the permanent removal from our atmosphere of oxygen in a directly usable form, a serious environmental problem called oxygen depletion, since the combustion turns hydrogen and oxygen into water whose separation to restore the original oxygen balance is prohibitive due to cost. We then show that a conceivable global use of hydrogen from the indicated regeneration origin in complete replacement of fossil fuels would imply the permanent removal from our atmosphere of 2.8875x107 metric tons of O2 /day, with consequential termination of all life forms in our planet in a few years."
Lets see. Limitless supply of energy with only water out the tailpipe, but using up all the oxygen so we suffocate. Hummmm. Let me think on that one for a minute. And why all the hype around Hydrogen? In part because the feedstock to create the hydrogen is fossil fuels! It leaves the same oil interests in charge.
I don't buy the hype. I bet the smarty pants scientists will come up with a way around oxygen depletion, but I am convinced oil interests will drive natural gas as the feedstock and that doesn't change our dependence on foreign sources. None of the hydrogen initiatives adequately address where the hydrogen will come from.
Just to make it crystal clear, I am NOT betting on the Hydrogen Economy.
Posted by Martin at March 8, 2005 12:10 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.nwventurevoice.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/1807
Comments
According to a professor I once had at Stanford and his friend who works for DARPA who is an expert in the field, the Hydrogen economy doesn't make any sense until fusion power is developed--he's betting no new wonderful leaps in power will be made to truly free us from fossil fuels until we have fusion power creating hydrogen. He gives it 40-50 years, assuming a decent Federal R&D budget allocated to fusion power.
Posted by: Tom L. 
at March 8, 2005 7:56 AM
I agree with that timeframe. Do you know if he has an opinion on the larger question of ANY hydrogen process leading to Oxygen Depletion?
Posted by: ministeroforder at March 8, 2005 9:21 AM
Wait a second...I thought the obstacle to a hydrogen economy was the high cost of extracting the hydrogen from water. Presumably if we're in a hydrogen economy it means we've solved that problem (I keep rooting for fusion power, too) so using the prohibitive cost of extraction as part of the argument doesn't pass Monty Python's "Professor of Logic" test.
Posted by: David Rea at March 11, 2005 12:33 PM
I wouldn't be jumping into any conclusions that quick...
1. The same guy is saying that CURRENT oxygen depletion, due to burning fossil fuels the way we do, stands at 3.7994 x 107 metric tons/day. That is 35% more than "hydrogen economy" scenario (2.8875x107 metric tons/day).
2. Fuel cells ARE more energy-efficient, "well-to-wheels", than any internal combustion engine (ICE). The figures vary from 15% to 40%, but the advantage is definitely there. I am referring to "fuel cells" here as a representation of "hydrogen economy", because that's where H2 is being used.
3. So, if we stop burning fossil fuels in ICEs and start using them as part of the "hydrogen economy" (i.e. producing H2 which will then be used in fuel cells which will then produce electricity which will then power, say, vehicles instead of ICEs), we (a) REDUCE oxygen depletion, (b) REDUCE CO2 and other pollutants, (c) INCREASE efficiency of our cars (mileage per unit of a fossil fuel).
4. Fossil fuels are here to stay for some time. "Hydrogen economy" is not (yet) about killing "the evil", it is about replacing it with a lesser one (whilst searching for a better solution). What's wrong about that? Many of us use certain s/w not because it's absolutely bug-free or the best in the world, but simply because it's a better solution than the current one. Or am I missing smth here? ;-)
Posted by: niceguy at March 23, 2005 1:53 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)