Hydrogen Cars Not Needed, US Experts Say

[Jeanette X]

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsst...1564/story.htm

Hydrogen Cars Not Needed, US Experts Say

USA: July 21, 2003


WASHINGTON - Two U.S. energy experts cast more doubt last week on a push to develop hydrogen-powered cars as a means to cut air pollution and reduce oil imports.


Cheaper and faster ways already exist to achieve the same effect, including raising fuel efficiency and toughening environmental standards, David Keith and Alexander Farrell, wrote in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

"Hydrogen cars are a poor short-term strategy, and it's not even clear that they are a good idea in the long term," Farrell, assistant professor of energy and resources at the University of California, Berkeley, said in a statement.

"Because the prospects for hydrogen cars are so uncertain, we need to think carefully before we invest all this money and all this public effort in one area."

President Bush has proposed spending $1.5 billion over five years to spur development by 2020 of cars that run on hydrogen fuel cells in order to cut dependence on imported oil.

The European Commission has said it plans to spend close to $2.3 billion (2.1 billion euros) on hydrogen-related research over the next four years.

Hydrogen is present in water, oil, gas and coal. Supporters of a "hydrogen economy" regard it as a clean source of energy that would cut pollution and the carbon dioxide emissions some scientists link to global warming.

Farrell and Keith, associate professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, noted that hydrogen is derived mostly from oil and coal, which produce substantial carbon dioxide.

They said better fuel efficiency, improvements to car technology and stricter environmental rules could reduce air pollution at less than 100th the cost of hydrogen cars and would be more effective for several decades.

"Automobile manufacturers don't need to invest in anything fancy. A wide number of technologies are already on the shelf," Farrell said. "The cost would be trivial compared to the changes needed to go to a hydrogen car."

Other scientists have also questioned the benefits of hydrogen fuel cells. Leading environmental groups have also criticized the U.S. government and Europe for failing to put renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power at the heart of their hydrogen policies.


REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

[ItalianStereotype]

do you care about anything BUT the environment?

[FS]

I believe that current developers of hydrogen engines still intend to burn fossil fuels to obtain the needed hydrogen.

[AChimp]

Farrell and Keith, associate professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, noted that hydrogen is derived mostly from oil and coal, which produce substantial carbon dioxide.

That is a huge pile of shit. The single largest source of hydrogen on Earth is water, and all you need to do to get it is zap it with electricity.

Admittedly, there are some efficiency issues regarding getting the hydrogen, but I have read of several developments in hydrogen fuel cells that recycle the water exhaust that is produced by using some of its own power. Other proposals suggest using solar or wind power to set up big hydrogen extraction facilities.

Hell, they could even use the hydroelectric power that's all over Canada's north.

The only thing that's at risk by switching to hydrogen is the oil companies.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by FS

I believe that current developers of hydrogen engines still intend to burn fossil fuels to obtain the needed hydrogen.

There are already plans to develop small machines that people will be able to run at home to provide the needed hydrogen. As Chimp says, it can be derived from water.

[Jeanette X]

Originally Posted by ItalianStereotype

do you care about anything BUT the environment?

Look at the other threads I started for the answer to your question.

[The One and Only...]

Who cares what the experts say? It's all about what the car manufacturers give us. They give us efficient hydrogen cars, we buy them. They give us crappy cars, we don't.

[FS]

Originally Posted by Mike

There are already plans to develop small machines that people will be able to run at home to provide the needed hydrogen. As Chimp says, it can be derived from water.

Yeah, but I expect companies that provide fossil fuels won't be swept aside so easily - especially in the US, where they're buddy-buddy with the president.

[Blackjack]

Ahh, I love the old alternative fuel debates.

Did you know the Germans managed to synthesise artificial diesal and gasoline during WW2 using bacteria?

The problem is it is very expensive to produce gasoline this way, whereas just pumping and refining it is much cheaper. Oil will run out one day though, so we need to push for alternatives to pumping it. Ultimately, gasoline is a very lightweight fuel for all the energy it contains so I still belive it is the future.

Better aerodynamics, engine design, cleaner gasoline and planned roads and cities is where we really should be looking

[Spectre X]

I think major Hydrogen extraction facilities from water would eb a good thing, because one of the by-products is oxygen

[mburbank]

"They give us crappy cars, we don't."
-One-and-only-guy-like-the-next-guy


Thank God for that great equalizer, the free market!

Give us crappy cars and we won't buy them! BUT... give us really expensive, efficient, gas guzzling muscle bound hulks designed for tasks they are virtually never used for ,craft an add campaign that appeals to our basic selfishness and give botaloads of money to politicians so they'll never vote for fuel efficiency standards and hey presto, Republic of Cretins that we are we EAT 'EM UP!

And before any idiot wastes jaw muscle on the old "I have a right to own an SUV!" saw, yes, you do. You also have a right to go shirtless and painted at a winter football ,hump veal, or develop a status recognition system with your peers based on how much paper money you can actually shove up you ass, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by mburbank

Give us crappy cars and we won't buy them!

I agree here.

BUT... give us really expensive, efficient, gas guzzling muscle bound hulks designed for tasks they are virtually never used for ,craft an add campaign that appeals to our basic selfishness and give botaloads of money to politicians so they'll never vote for fuel efficiency standards and hey presto, Republic of Cretins that we are we EAT 'EM UP!

Okay, first of all... how are gas cars more expensive than hydrogen cars? I'm not counting the price of gas right here.

You are right that cars are rediculous in their design, but that's the free market. I don't understand why people want them. But hey, if that's what they want, that's what they buy.

Add campaign? A hydrogen car could be advertised just as easily as a gas one, just in a different direction.

All this aside, I think company's should be allowed to make cars that the people want to buy. It sounds like if you had your way, this would often not be the case. No one ever said capatalism had it's drawbacks.

That said, I'm all for hydrogen cars. I do believe people would buy them.

[mburbank]

You miss my point entirely.

I was quoting you about people not buying crappy cars. People are sheep. The quality of a product or the logic of it's design have little or nothing to do with wether people will buy it. The SUV is the modern version of Tulip Bulb hysteria.

[The One and Only...]

I see. I suppose crappy is subjective, though. It's all relative to what you want in an automobile.

[Mike]

http://www.hondanews.com/Forms/envir...s(r)_text.html

Honda's Zero Emission Car. Apparently it's much more expensive than conventionally powered vehicles, but that will probably change when the process of producing the hydrogen fuel is optimized and worked into the economy.

[mburbank]

We just had Honda's ASIMO robot at my Museum. These Hondo folks mean to be THE forward thinking high tech mass production people.




Hope their 'accounting' has been 'regular'.


Cause I kinda like them.

[Bennett]

Whenever I see one of those ASIMO guys, I have the biggest childish urge to destroy it and just go terminator 2 on its robit ass.

[Zebra 3]

(article) They said better fuel efficiency, improvements to car technology and stricter environmental rules could reduce air pollution at less than 100th the cost of hydrogen cars and would be more effective for several decades.

- This smells like good ol' fashioned bulshit...

[Big Papa Goat]

all you need to do to get it is zap it with electricity

And where does this electricity come from? hmm?
I agree with the principle of hydrogen fuel cells in that it is a clean, renewable energy source for transportation, but until we start using clean, renewable energy sources for electricity, a hydrogen economy is still a long way away. There are also many other issues to contend with, such as an efficient process to electrolyze water, safe and efficient hydrogen batteries, etc, etc.[/quote]

[AChimp]

HELLO NEWBIE.

SINCE YOU ARE BLIND, I WILL RE-POST MY OWN RESPONSE TO THAT POINT THAT I MADE ONE LINE DOWN FROM THAT SENTENCE.

Admittedly, there are some efficiency issues regarding getting the hydrogen, but I have read of several developments in hydrogen fuel cells that recycle the water exhaust that is produced by using some of its own power. Other proposals suggest using solar or wind power to set up big hydrogen extraction facilities.

Hell, they could even use the hydroelectric power that's all over Canada's north.

[Big Papa Goat]

No need to get mad my good chimp. I think I may have communicated poorly, but what I was basically getting at is not that we don't HAVE renewable electric energy sources, its just that we don't USE them enough, because they are often unreliable (Solar/Wind), expensive and environmentally un-good (Hydro/Nuclear) or just too difficult to set up in most areas (Tidal/Geothermal). Maybe I'm wrong about some of this, but I'm pretty sure I'm right about the fact that most electricity is generated by fossil fuels, and therefore, most hydrogen would be seperated from water using energy from polluting fossil fuels. I apologize for anyone I may have upset with my n00bishness and general ignorance.

[The_Rorschach]

You made my day happy Chimp

[AChimp]

And a good thing, too, since this one's almost over.

its just that we don't USE them enough, because they are often unreliable (Solar/Wind), expensive and environmentally un-good (Hydro/Nuclear) or just too difficult to set up in most areas (Tidal/Geothermal).

Solar power is crap, agreed. You can either build the solar panels with a lot of shielding so they last a long time at the expense of efficiency, or you can do the reverse at the expense of having to put up a new panel every year because of decay caused by UV.

Wind, though, is fairly promising, albeit in a few locations. Why not put the big hydrogen plants there and then ship it all around? Hydrogen would be the perfect commodity to ship using pipelines, I think.

And, nuclear plants and hydro dams already exist, so the damage has been done.

Tidal and geothermal options, again, can be used where appropriate for large hydrogen extraction facilities.

There isn't any need to resort to fossil fuels, except the "need" to line the oil industry's pockets.

[Zero Signal]

SEND THE NUCLEAR WASTE INTO THE SUN.

[AChimp]

Yeah. Or they could use it to make giant tomatoes and crops to feed the Third World.