A Response to: The hydrogen economy may come after all; mass-market H2 car in five years
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.
posted by mgross @ 8:42 AM
0 Comments
