In recent years, many people wrote that as oil reserves are diminishing, we should use hydrogen to power our cars. Before going further, it is important to remember that hydrogen is not itself a source of energy, but a carrier of the energy produced by fuel cells. And if we want a greener world, all this hydrogen needs to be produced by renewable sources of energy.
In “Hydrogen economy looks out of reach,” an article which invites controversy, Nature mentions the paper of two UK authors, a professor of economy and an energy consultant. They say that to convert all cars and trucks in the UK to use hydrogen would require 100,000 wind turbines or 100 nuclear stations. And these numbers would have to be multiplied by 10 for the U.S.: one million wind turbines or 1,000 nuclear plants.
By looking at their calculations, I have the feeling that the authors forgot that technology evolves at a rapid pace. Wind turbines will be more powerful and more efficient twenty years from now. This should significantly reduce the above numbers. Also, the two authors didn’t take a look at other alternative energies.
So, even if an hydrogen economy is not for tomorrow, it will not be necessary to spoil our landscapes with huge wind farms. This analysis looks at the authors’ calculations.
Comments
@ 14:34
When I first saw this paper, I found it unrealistic and sent a note off to both authors. Jim Oswald was gracious in his reply but essentially confirmed that this is not serious scientific analysis but a propaganda piece. The numbers are true for hydrogen in ICE, not fuel cells. Transport savings for energy are not counted. Multi-source hydrogen is explicitly omitted as too confusing.
Essentially it sets up a straw man and discredits an approach (hydrogen in ICE) that nobody advocates but seems to attack hydrogen fuel cells. Commentary should carefully distinguish between the two scenarios. Furthermore, this scenario omits the most common pathway that we are likely to see, hydrogen from hydrocarbons plus a growing share of renewables as they become economically viable.
@ 21:08
Before you discount the possibility of a million “unsightly” wind turbines in America, look around.
If you live anywhere where there are people you are already surrounded by towers: transmission towers for radios, cell phones, televisions; power line and telephone and cable poles, not to mention the millions and millions of signs and billboards.
I am sure we can tolerate quite a few towers in our midst - especially if they can serve multiple purposes and contribute to a sustainable energy future.
@ 01:17
Yes, the hydrogen piece is propaganda because it does not look at alternatives. There have been several research projects that look into methods different from simple electrolysis for splitting water to recover hydrogen.
As an example, according to this article, it is possible to make hydrogen by simple action of sunlight and a catalyst on water:
Admittedly these are long range (7 years?) prospects, but there are numerous other research projects that attempt to find ways for hydrogen production based on other methods than simple electrolysis. Experimenters have tried ultraviolet light stimulation, high frequency and pulsed electricity, resonance and other means to make hydrogen production less energy consuming. That is an area of research that’s important but does not get enough attention.
@ 11:39
Somebody is off a by decimal point or two on the number of windmills. See It’s Just Gas