This is a response to the Article @ http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/04/30/gm-could-have-mass-market-hydrogen-vehicle-for-sale-in-five-year/
I'm a little bit confused... If we equip North America with hydrogen stations for $12B, that is great. However, to compare that to the Alaskan Pipeline does not really make any sense. The Alaskan Pipeline transports actual Energy - in the form of Oil / Fossil Fuels. Hydrogen stations are just stations - they do not have any energy. Remember, hydrogen is just a technique to transport energy; it is zero-sum. You start with water, use energy to electrolyze it into hydrogen, and then use the hydrogen in a fuel cell whose output is water. So, you start with water and end with water - It is zero-sum (less efficiency costs). So to compare building hydrogen stations to building the Alaskan pipeline is comparing Apples to Oranges. To make hydrogen a viable alternative to gasoline in cars, we need to figure out a way to make it without burning fossil fuels (ie. Nuclear power or Solar power). Therefore, to make hydrogen good for the environment,
Step 1: Increase solar cell efficiency
Step 2: Reduce solar cell cost
Step 3: Ensure a vast supply of Uranium
Step 4: Power all our homes and offices with Solar / Nuclear
Step 5: Only at this point, we can then use the excess Solar / Nuclear energy to produce hydrogen for cars.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
If hydrogen is a carrier of energy, then why not use solar energy to create/split or harvest in some fashion hydrogen to power cars, or other facilities, when solar energy is not available. Hydrogen fuel cells, methanol Fuelcells, or other types of fuel cells are far more effecient than burning compare 35 - 50% for fuel cells to 25 - 35 % for standard carnot cycle buring. If we are willing to use energy you can search for patents I and others from SRI International were issued for the electrochemical generation of Methanol, or ethanol from Carbon Di-oxide. If we used Solar energy, we could theoretically convert green house gas to fuel. Be warned this is not a perpetual motion machine, we end up creating heat in some fashion, but we can remove some carbon di-oxide from the atmosphere in the process.
United States Patent 4609441
United States Patent 4959131
Frese, Jr.; K. W. and S. Leach, J. Electrochem. Soc., 132, 259 (1985)..
Post a Comment