[Grovenet] FYI, from this week's E-Skeptic

[Chris Genly]

This article has a weird tone.  It starts out by listing perpetual 
motion, free energy, cold fusion and then asks about hydrogen.  Sort of 
guilt by association.  A ridiculous start.

I didn't find the article inaccurate.  But it bugged me at several 
spots.  What is the point of transitioning to a hydrogen economy? It's 
to ease carbon dioxide emissions and prevent contributing any more to 
anthropogenic global warming.  Given this why would you make hydrogen 
from natural gas?  That's a commercial method used today to make 
hydrogen.  But the goal today is to make cheap hydrogen, not to avoid a 
carbon dioxide free process.  A carbon dioxide free process is the new 
enlightened goal.  Thus in a hydrogen economy you wouldn't get nitrous 
oxides while producing hydrogen because you wouldn't be using natural 
gas.  I found the articles presentation rather muddled.     (For similar 
reasons liquefaction of coal is a ridiculous idea.)

The point about storing hydrogen being difficult is well taken.  Other 
areas of research are looking at producing methane and other simple 
carbon molecules as a storage and transportation method. You might 
object that we are back to carbon fuels again.  But there is a big 
difference between open and closed carbon cycles.  If we take the carbon 
from the atmosphere to make methane, then there is zero net  
contribution once the fuel is burned.  Research is ongoing in to storage 
using hydrides and other methods.

The points about producing hydrogen being too expensive to store energy 
because of the inefficiencies in the production chain is again 
confused.  If we had to make gasoline from the raw components we'd find  
similar problems.   Also the statement that hydrogen will not be 
feasible until cheap fusion power is available struck me as nonsense.

If we are going to get away from carbon, or at least get away from open 
carbon cycles for our energy needs, then we are going to have to go to 
renewable energy.   I think this primarily means wind and solar power.  
A fact we are going to have to adjust to is wind and solar power are 
gentler than oil.  Meaning they are less concentrated and their energy 
produced at a gentler pace compared to the rate at which we can pump 
energy in the form of oil from the ground.  This gentler rate is 
something we just have accept.  Oil originally got its energy content 
from solar power.  And it was not produced at a fast pace.  We are 
pumping oil out of the ground far far faster than it went in to the 
ground.  Which is to say if we are going to use renewable energy as the 
basis of our power needs we are going to have to accept that it is not 
as concentrated as oil and adopt a patient attitude towards energy 
production.

I'm in favor of fusion power, but I think it is a long way off.  I'm 
very much against fission power.  The disposal of the nuclear waste 
alone makes me think this is not an option.  The political problems in 
solving the logistics seem impossible to resolve.  Not to mention 
production and security problems.  Fission is very concentrated like 
oil.  So I see it as a very tempting energy source.  I hope our policy 
makers can resist the temptation.

We are not ready for the hydrogen economy.  More technological and 
industrial improvements have to be made.  Fuel cells are expensive and 
fragile, but they hold a lot of promise.  Hydrogen storage is not very 
practical for vehicles.  Too heavy and leaky.   But to me the goal is 
not a hydrogen economy, it is a renewable energy economy.  If it turns 
out hydrogen is the storage and transportation method of choice, then 
thats fine.  But I see several other possibilities.

What I object to most about the article is its negative tone.  I came 
away feeling that the author was trying to tell us the hydrogen economy 
is a scam.  I believe it is a possible component of our renewable energy 
future.  What is needed is strong leadership, research investments, 
making use of the technologies we have today (wind turbines, solar 
thermal and photovoltaic)  and a positive vision of a renewable energy 
economy.




Bob Browning wrote:
>
> In this week’s /eSkeptic/, Alice Friedemann examines the science and 
> pseudoscience behind a hydrogen economy. Is it worth the energy?
>
> Friedemann is a systems architect for a large international 
> transportation company, has a B.S. in biology with a chemistry/physics 
> minor from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, and is a 
> free-lance science writer and member of the Northern California 
> Science Writers Association.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>         The Hydrogen Economy
>         Savior of Humanity or an Economic Black Hole?
>
> by Alice Friedemann
>
> Skeptics scoff at perpetual motion, free energy, and cold fusion, but 
> what about energy from hydrogen? Before we invest trillions of dollars 
> in a hydrogen economy, we should examine the science and pseudoscience 
> behind the hydrogen hype. Let’s begin by taking a hydrogen car out for 
> a spin.
>