I don't think it will lead toward hydrogen fuel, or any major shift in focus, only a bigger boondogle down the road.

Confession is a pretty strong word to describe spilling ones guts to a reporter huh? It's not like he was in a little booth whispering his concerns to someone sworn to secrecy. I wonder if he feels absolved?

I think money would be better spent to find a way to reduce N2O emissions from diesel or biodisel than to promote hydrogen fuel. People would need to accept that nuclear energy is safe before hydrogen production could ever happen. Even then, will people actually feel comfortable pumping liquid hydrogen?

I think money will be well wasted until we end our dependency on non-renewables.

Will people actually feel comfortable pumping liquid hydrogen?

Considering how people have gotten comfortable pumping liquid gasoline into orifices mere centimeters from glowing-hot catalytic converters, while wearing clothing virtually guaranteed to build up a sparking level of static charge on dry windy days...or gotten comfortable with suburban crystal meth labs next door...or are getting comfortable with building, and deploying, and moving over roadways implanted with, Improvised Explosive Devices for the empowering sense those give their builders, not to mention their benefits to otherwise bored commuters who just want to do their jobs to secure a steady supply of gasoline and crystal meth for anyone else who wants them...

Yeah, I think if we can keep moving forward (not a sure thing), eventually LH will pervade our lives to the point of, "Guck-guck-guck, hey, lookame here, Bubba, me a rokit syintist now!"

Sooner that, than strap-on nuke power packs (I HOPE!).

Just thinking about a hydrogen car bomb scares me. Advances in technology may be hindered by the unruley :(

I don't think you have to worry about a hydrogen bomb (as in nuclear fusion bomb). If hydrogen gas was a major explosive material, we would have expected the gas to be a military weapon, if not a terrorist one.

Accept that new-killer power is safe? and Oshma bin Ladin is a pacifist?

Stiches is correct. We (global society) must end dependence on non-renewable fuels. Further, I believe, and far less politically popular, is that we must end the era of the private auto; whether powered by gasoline, electricity, hydrogen, or soybeans, private autos are inefficient, polluting (consider all the lubricants, tires, etc., for even the cleanest vehicle), and require us to pave over vast swaths of our mother the earth so we can drive wherever and whenever we please.

If we are ever to have a sustainable economy and society, we will need REAL mass transit, much greater use of human-powered transit (i.e., walking, bicycle, etc.), and some scheme to share vehicles for when truely necessary (i.e., transporting a load of bricks, manure, etc.). Service vehicles (i.e., construction and repair) and emergency and public-service vehicles, would still be necessary and desireable and could be powered by the cleanest available technology; with vast reduction in private autos, however, would come vast reduction in some of the main needs for emergency vehicles (i.e. auto accidents).

I accept that I am being hypocritical when I say this ... I drive a 10 year old Ford Ranger that is hardly a paragon of efficiency ... and the other family car is a fairly large station wagon (2001 Ford Tarus; we bought becuase we have both eldery & young persons to transport and small cars would not do the trick).

I'm also sure that someone will rebut this and sing the praises of the automobile and private enterprise, et. al.

Realistically, I don't expect to see the end of the private car in my lifetime. I just don't think that global society can be sustained, tho', unless it does come to pass, sooner or later, along with a large number of other changes.

More questions than answers.

Peace,

- Sequoia

The Auto Age offers up personal vehicles as emblems of a much larger array of cultural artifacts: suburbs, exurbs, shopping malls, big box stores, strip service industries linking major focal points, etc. So dropping autos and other personal vehicles from the equation would result in immediate collapse of these ancillary developments.

I'm not writing that such changes might not lead to better communities, I just think that vast numbers of people would no longer be employed in many service businesses catering to personal mobility.

I wasn't suggesting that personal automobiles could be eliminated overnight. I think that the change could take 50 years and be done comfortably ... or 10 years or less and be done drastically, if we put off starting the transition for too long. How long is too long? I don't know ... I will probably be dead, but I'm not sure about my daughter or subsequent generations.

Also, when I said that someone would "sing the praises of the automobile and private enterprise" ... I do not want to suggest that I oppose true private enterprise, i.e., locally owned and operated business. But today's mega-corporations, many operating with hugh subsidies, tax-breaks, and collusion with the current government, are not truely private enterprise at all.

Peace,

- Sequoia

So, what else has the 1900's done to create so much trouble for us in the 2000's and on? Dont tell me that time is now genetically modified and will not longer have the same charateristics as we once knew of time. And if time no longer exists then what happened to the time machine and lets get back to pre-stupid times and readjust the problamtic and insane inventions/discoveries and get back on track!
Stiches...are you trying to encourage a new rage?

okay okay...hydrogen fuel....co2 can become o2 from a plant and combine with hydrogen to make water...are you talking stream power? Oh dear, Someone might get burned, or shalded, should we keep using what is familar, Just use it up and then figure out a plan out of neccessity...?!

Sue, I'm raged-out for now (i.e., beyond even outraged), so I truly don't mean to encourage any new rage. I think we all need new reasons to hope. I think I feel today like a despondent Iraqi or Rwandan must feel - it's not like there would ever be any reason to feel otherwise. Things are falling down fast, to a point beyond hoping we humans can ever get any closer to renewable energy than our own heavy breathing.

Here is a link that might be useful: Basics

Marshall I always enjoy reading your powerful undertones which when you suggest communities might become displaced and have to seek alternative lifestyles and possibly employment, I thought that that could be rather interesting and perhaps wholesome. I could only visulaize farming to be on the increase on a community and private level.

My 12 yo niece is staying with me for the summer. She isfrom the CHicago area and use to being independent and as free to travel by bus anywhere. I live where no buses have gone before and its down a 2 mile dirt road, that has horse manure deposits in the road, bears knocking bee hives down on occasion and acres and acres of blueberry fields....she misses McDonalds and KFC allot, talks about feeling deprieved from what she is use to...I am almost feeling like this life is wrong for her. She constantly has her head phones on very loud as the loons and frogs in the pond just dont do it for her. I hope she comes around some day, I realize most people feel like she does. On a recent walk we did come across a feild of wild strawberries at peak. Our hands were all stained red and we ate until we all got our fill and ate some more....there is nothing as sweet and good as a wild strawberry found ripe and in abundant.

stiches.. I read the link on "Basics" its not very basic to me, it is however very clear, I did get lost in about the end part, so I will try to digest some more of it, later/soon. Thanks, I had never really understood much about hydrogen as a fuel source. Most of what I read seems that electric is still a necessity to create the fuel, or possibly windmills or solar. Might it get spoiled if introduced and the bias was showing that hydrogen was not a good choice. And of course we know what identities already would oppse such thinking. The world had become interdependent on resources which I agree need to become more "renewable" as well as less harmful/impacting to the ecosystems. It will be interesting to see how this ole planet changes over the years ot come as I go into the next generation of old people! :)

The planet will change as we force it to.. Isn't the real question how we can change ourselves to complement the planet and turn it into the jewell of the solar system?? We take this place in time for granted,, (we're all guilty) because we let big business and conglamo's get away with bloody murder. . . And no one say's a thing. They've already done it with oil.. water's next... Very soon, all but those in charge will be slaves in the undeniable sense, will it be to late then? Peace, darlene

I agree with you cochiseaz8. So, how do we have a revolution? or reform?

From what I've read about hydrogen fuel, after you subtract the energy that it takes to manufacture it from the energy that you get from it, the net gain is zero.

why not just keep things simple, raise gas prices to 5 or 6 bucks a gal use the extra money for reserch and development. in the meantime the high prices would force people to drive less, and purchase smaller vehicles, thus saving oil, and helping the enviroment.

Sounds simple enough Bill but isn't that the idea in European nations and other countries around the globe, it seems to cut down on driving alright but what really happens to that $$$ is another question? Maybe we in the US are still waiting for them to find that elusive R&D magic bullet so we don't have too shell out the bucks. vgkg

i dont think there is any magic bullet in the near future. but given enough incentive, ( money, profits, etc ) petroleum companys can produce much cleaner gasoline and diesel, and car company can make cars and trucks that get better mpg, and are not so hard on the enviroment. americans will not accept mass transportation anytime soon, so why not just make what we have cleaner and more effecient. these problems cant be solved overnight, and throwing money shotgun style at every possible solution wont work. maximise efforts on one target, make it work. and i just dont see hydrogen as the answer.

US politicians have been promising oil independance since the Nixon daze to no avail. My old 72' Dodge van got ~18 mpg and my newer 98' Dodge Caravan gets about 23 mpg. Not much of an improvement over 26 years, we could have done better, one gets the impression that we didn't want too. vgkg

Whether or not hydrogen is the answer, I s'pect that the energy companies and their political pals will keep milkin' it 'till they find a way to make $$$$ off of it ... or maybe, it will just be the researchers and politicos makin' bucks off it and providing a diversion from serious reform that would wean us from excess energy consumption in transport, period.

Meanwhile, FoMoCo can say "look we have a green roof and a hybrid SUV (okay, mini-suv)" and keep producing the big ol' gas guzzelin' SUVs in ever larger numbers.

Sigh.

Peace,

- Sequoia

Sighing with you, Sequoia.

We humans are congenitally incapable of setting up a just, reliable, sustainable and planet-friendly system for energy production and distribution - or any such system for anything else, for that matter. Whatever follows petrofuels will be marred by rackets of all kinds, chasing some other precious commodity. Whether by private industry or public "industry," new rackets are a-comin'. It's only a question of who's going to get, and who's going to get taken, when, and how.

"I don't think you have to worry about a hydrogen bomb (as in nuclear fusion bomb). If hydrogen gas was a major explosive material, we would have expected the gas to be a military weapon, if not a terrorist one."

Nuclear fusion is not my primary concern, but I do feel terrorism will preclude hydgrogen fuel from being a common comidity.

The problem is that hydrogen supplies three times the energy per pound of gasoline it has only one tenth the density when the hydrogen is in a liquid form and very much less when it is stored as a compressed gas. This means that hydrogen fuel tanks must be much larger. The gasoline fuel rig that was detonated in Iraq yesterday would have taken out a few blocks and killed foar more than 10+ if hydrogen fuel had been in storage.

Liquid hydrogen is also cold enough to freeze air, and accidents have occured from pressure build-up following plugged valves. Too dangerous for the everyday car.

There are many other subjects of concern that most be solved. Just pointing out the social factor that may limit technology.

My understanding was always that the golden ring, if you will, was not for switching over a car to use hydrogen rather than gas as a fuel, nor to break down another fuel for it's hydrogen. The ultimate goal was to split water down to it's components and immediately use the hydrogen (e.g., little or no storage), and have the byproduct be the oxygen. The other items would simply be stepping stones to that idea.

Jason, the application you posed would best serve the possibilities of hydrogen fuel. I'm simply stating Hydrogen fuel has too many limitations/concerns to even begin to replace our need for petroleum and will never be a common house and auto fuel, IMO. Hydrogen fuel is misrepresneted too often as our fuel solution for the future. There are alot facts and fallacies of hydrogen fuel that need to be brought out. Unfortunately I am the wrong person to pose as an expert on this.

Hey, the prez thinks hydrogen is the way to go! A slam dunk LOL!

Vgkg,
I heard that he forgot to allocate the money he promised for Hydrogen R&D. Too busy with other matters...(LOL)

Unfortunately Steve there ain't any money to allocate to anything anymore....we're a check bouncing nation :o(
vgkg

I'm beggining to think some here have little more than a political opinion that they feel compelled to squeeze in every thread. How about keeping to the topic.

I kinda like that water daddy.

Absolutely, will be back with Hydrogen fuel chat later...

Ok, from what I've read it appears that this idea won't really be fruitful for some time, perhaps another 20+ years (at least here in the US). Perhaps some monumental breakthroughs could help speed this up but afforable cars, H refueling stations, and price effective H sources are the 3 mountains that have to be climbed first. There are some small scale experimental H vehicle programs now going on in certain countries to see how well it works. Also, from what I gather the vehicles will be run by fuel cells that are supplied Hydrogen via compressed gas/tanks. It also sounds like the Japanese are way ahead of US in making this a reality in their country, at least in the experimental application stages. Establishing the network of supply stations will be a monumental task here and the price per vehicle is presently prohibitive. Below is a googled page of sources for the latest Hydrogen fuel news. Most of it is news from around the world, some interesting reading. vgkg

Here is a link that might be useful: Latest News sources on H fuel possibilties

Stitches, at first your "basics" site above rejected my attempts to get access but today it does work. After reviewing the links I found this projected outlook interesting in regard to sources of future hydrogen.

*snip* (a prediction for the future)
"The United States is not so dependent on a single source of fuel. Hydrogen is produced, domestically, cleanly and cost-effectively, from a variety of sources including renewables, such as biomass and water; fossil fuels, using advanced technologies to ensure that any carbon released in the process does not escape into the atmosphere; and nuclear energy. Hydrogen is delivered and stored routinely and safely."

This of course is a rosy future scenario. I find it interesting that "fossil fuels" will still play a major part in producing hydrogen, also the nuclear angle. Hydrogen from decompostion (biomass) seems doable but at how large a scale would it have to be? I'm assuming that the H would be further derived from methane of decompostion but that's another energy consuming step. Perhaps just the production of methane applied to energy use would be more efficient? Also, no mention of breaking apart water molecules to produce H so perhaps that's the method that comsumes more energy than it produces? So far, all the places I've looked on this subject seems more like hopes and dreams rather than actual results. The issue of using fossil fuels to produce hydrogen appears self defeating at best? Don't mean to be a wet blanket but a lot of questions go unaswered from what I've read thus far on the topic. Sounds good for special applications but to operate the world on hydrogen as being the new energy source to save the future? I must be missing something? At any rate, the fuel cell is a great "machine" to use the hydrogen, just hope there's enough fuel to go around to feed it. vgkg

Vgkg, you are correct, and so are several others who have posted in this thread: Hydrogen as a major source of energy - or as the primary source of energy - is a far-off (far-out) dream - maybe an impossible dream. No need for anyone to feel like a wet blanket for having healthy skepticism. Somehow, though, we have to think beyond our skepticism, in spite of our skepticism, and figure out what we can (or can not) do next, after the oil, coal and gas are gone.

Where is that thinking? It does not seem to be going on in this country. And I can't get all excited about other countries that might appear to be "ahead of" us, just because we can see something they're doing that seems "advanced." I am too jaded from trade show overload, the ComDex-es and Paris Air Shows and the like, to go bug-eyed like some Wall Street caffeine addict over a couple of hyped "innovations." All the "gadgetology" (no - I'll call it what it is: gadget mania) is just so much Disneyesque Tomorrowland (i.e. NEVERland). Tell me I can find it on a rack at the local 7-11 or Wal Mart in the next few years, and then maybe I'll buy it.

Back to topic: It is still too early to conclude whether it is (or is not) feasible to integrate hydrogen at all into a global mix of energy sources, let alone integrate it in a major way. I mentioned hydrogen with the thought that its "clean" combustion, plus its renewability, is desirable, at least in some future applications where it could economically replace traditional, dirtier and non-renewable fuels. Of course, by "economically," I mean to include all the factors that can affect supply and demand, such as and including safety or perceived safety; net efficiency from source to use; and independence of supply from traditional supplies that are known to be dwindling. Kinda ridiculous, ain't it, to hold out promise of hydrogen fuels - made from fossil fuels?!! LOL!!

If the current technologies for extraction and production of the current chief sources of energy are sustained - and barring all the possible disasters that could quickly set back our species three or more centuries - it will be interesting to see what humans do next, once all the petroleum, coal and natural gas are used-up, or approach de facto used-up. Based purely on human events in my own brief lifetime, I have to remain skeptical in my own way: that is, suspicious that we will inflict one of those severe global disasters upon our own species, in the course of trying to solve the energy supply problem.

For alternative supplies of energy in the amounts we are currently accustomed to, among the earth-based sources are gravity, the tides (including oceanic waves and currents), the winds, biomass, geothermal processes, the planetary magnetic field, nuclear energy, "plain old" incident solar energy, and...what else? Which of those shall we exploit next, on a scale that affords continuity from where the old sources leave off?

While staying skeptical in my own way, I'll also stay hopeful in my own way. Along with that skepticism and hope in mind, though, I'll stick to a sense of urgency that we need to get on with exploiting "terrenext" energy. We need to bust out of our complacent behavior - behaving as if this century and all subsequent centuries of civilization can be sustained and improved upon, using all the oil, coal and natural gas that all previous centuries' societies needed to find and exploit - as if all that oil, coal and gas are there.

Where I live, around Houston, a business center concerned with all the traditional energy, I keep my eyes and ears tuned for signs that the current industry is positioning itself to provide and profit from terrenext energy. About the most I have seen are British Petroleum (BP) TV ads that tout the company's "forward thinking." While the ads might be somewhat "hip," I cannot say they are impressive or reassuring AT ALL. It's not upsetting that "the horizon" of traditional energy sources is fuzzy - horizons are typically fuzzy. It's upsetting that there are so few signs that the people who ought to be looking are even looking at the horizon at all.

Kinda ironic ain't it, being that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Maybe we could build a giganic nanospacenet to capture and funnel the interstellar hydrogen down thru a pipeline which could be an addition to the upcoming space elevator! Time to go to bed now.....

The latest is of the journal Science is devoted to hydrogen as a fuel and to other aspects of the energy equation. I've appended the titles; for access to full articles, you must be a subscriber. In the meantime, I'll post the series' editors introduction.

------------------------------------------------------------

Not So Simple
Robert Coontz and Brooks Hanson
Seen up close, hydrogen looks like a recipe for success. Small and simple--one proton and one electron in its most common atomic form--hydrogen was the first element to assemble as the universe cooled off after the big bang, and it is still the most widespread. It accounts for 90% of the atoms in the universe, two-thirds of the atoms in water, and a fair proportion of the atoms in living organisms and their geologic legacy, fossil fuels.

To scientists and engineers, those atoms offer both promise and frustration. Highly electronegative, they are eager to bond, and they release energy generously when they do. That makes them potentially useful, if you can find them. On Earth, however, unattached hydrogen is vanishingly rare. It must be liberated by breaking chemical bonds, which requires energy. Once released, the atoms pair up into two-atom molecules, whose dumbbell-shaped electron clouds are so well balanced that fleeting charge differences can pull them into a liquid only at a frigid -252.89 Celsius, 20 kelvin above absolute zero. The result, at normal human-scale temperatures, is an invisible gas: light, jittery, and slippery; hard to store, transport, liquefy, and handle safely; and capable of releasing only as much energy as human beings first pump into it. All of which indicates that using hydrogen as a common currency for an energy economy will be far from simple. The papers and News stories in this special section explore some of its many facets.

Consider hydrogen's green image. As a manufactured product, hydrogen is only as clean or dirty as the processes that produce it in the first place. Turner (p. 972) describes various options for large-scale hydrogen production in his Viewpoint. Furthermore, as News writer Service points out (p. 958), production is just one of many technologies that must mature and mesh for hydrogen power to become a reality, a fact that leads many experts to urge policymakers to cast as wide a net as possible.

In some places, the transition to hydrogen may be relatively straightforward. For her News story (p. 966), Vogel visited Iceland, whose abundant natural energy resources have given it a clear head start. Elsewhere, though, various technological detours and bridges may lie ahead. The Viewpoint by Demirdöven and Deutch (p. 974) and Cho's News story (p. 964) describe different intermediate technologies that may shape the next generation of automobiles. Meanwhile, the fires of the fossil fuel-based "carbon economy" seem sure to burn intensely for at least another half-century or so [see the Editorial by Kennedy (p. 917)]. Service's News story on carbon sequestration (p. 962) and Pacala and Socolow's Review (p. 968) explore strategies--including using hydrogen--for mitigating their effects.

Two generations down the line, the world may end up with a hydrogen economy completely different from the one it expected to develop. Perhaps the intermediate steps on the road to hydrogen will turn out to be the destination. The title we chose for this issue--Toward a Hydrogen Economy-- reflects that basic uncertainty and the complexity of what is sure to be a long, scientifically engaging journey.

============================================================

SPECIAL ISSUE: Toward a Hydrogen Economy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Toward a Hydrogen Economy: Introduction to special issue
--------------------

Not So Simple
Robert Coontz and Brooks Hanson
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/957?etoc
p. 957

Toward a Hydrogen Economy: News
--------------------

The Hydrogen Backlash
Robert F. Service
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/958?etoc
p. 958

The Carbon Conundrum
Robert F. Service
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/962?etoc
p. 962

Choosing a CO2 Separation Technology
Robert F. Service
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/963?etoc
p. 963

Fire and ICE: Revving Up for H2
Adrian Cho
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/964?etoc
p. 964

Will the Future Dawn in the North?
Gretchen Vogel
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/966?etoc
p. 966

Can the Developing World Skip Petroleum?
Gretchen Vogel
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/305/5686/967?etoc
p. 967

Toward a Hydrogen Economy: Viewpoint
--------------------

Sustainable Hydrogen Production
John A. Turner
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/972?etoc
p. 972

Hybrid Cars Now, Fuel Cell Cars Later
Nurettin Demirdoven and John Deutch
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/974?etoc
p. 974

Toward a Hydrogen Economy: Review
--------------------

Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years
with Current Technologies
S. Pacala and R. Socolow
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968?etoc
p. 968

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd dearly love to read these articles; is this a newstand mag I can buy?

Not really but in the past I've seen copies in large newspaper and magazine stores. Some public libraries and a University library would surely have one. You might be able to get your local library to borrow a copy from the larger public library system. I'd get in a heap of trouble posting them here (or the webmaster would). If there are a few of particular interest, I can send you a copy. Drop me a private email if you're interested.

Here's a new idea on developing hydrogen fuel. I think the cost of landmass required to produce enough sunflowers as viable fuel source would likely outweigh any gains.

"Dr Dupont and her colleagues think they may have an answer: a hydrogen generator that uses only sunflower oil, air and water vapour. The secret lies in two catalysts, one based on nickel, the other on carbon.

"Hydrogen from sunflower oil could provide a more environmentally-friendly alternative," she told the American Chemical Society conference in Philadelphia yesterday. Her oil comes direct from supermarket shelves - "we'd happily toss our salad with it."

Her generator, so far, exists only on a laboratory bench, and has yet to supply hydrogen to any fuel cells. But a similar device could deliver hydrogen to the garage forecourt to fill the fuel cells of tomorrow's cars, she said."

Alcea...I read the article(link).

Perhaps I should reread it a few more times, however...I thought we were already using vegetabel oil as an alternative fuel suppliment to diesel engine cars. THe process is highly caustic, however, after so many hours the chemicals have completed theri reaction and what is left is a fuel which can be used in conjunction or instead of diesel...the draw back is that in cold frigid temps the alternative fuel tends to jell or solidify.:(

Actually, G(4), there are two ways of using vegie oil for fuel. One is called "biodiesel" ... info from U. of Idaho and biodiesel.org. Basically, you can use biodiesel in an unaltered diesel engine.

The other option is Straight Veggie Oil (SVO, or WVO for Waste Veggie Oil). Greasecar.com and and another article on The Voice News.

To me, using waste veggie oil sounds like the "greenest" way to go, but I have no personal experience.

Peace,

- Sequoia

Ok, in my bid to keep everyone informed of all sides. From a report in the Cato Institute,

Politicians on both the Left and the Right have increasingly embraced subsidies for hydrogen powered
fuel cells as a promising way to move America away from reliance on petroleum. Although advocates concede that such technologies are at least several decades away from penetrating the market in any significant manner because of cost considerations, less attention has been paid to the environmental implications of such a transition.

Given current technology, switching from gasoline to hydrogen-powered fuel cells would greatly increase energy consumption even if the hydrogen were extracted from water rather than from fossil fuels. Thats because it takes a tremendous amount of electricity to harvest hydrogen and to deliver it to consumers. Moreover, a transition from gasoline to hydrogen would nearly double net greenhouse gas
emissions attributable to passenger vehicles, given the current fuel mix in the electricity sector.