There's a lot of talk these days about Hydrogen fuel cells and the hydrogen economy and how the great ol' USA is going to merge into an enlightened new age, thanks to the technological achievements of H-cells. Warning, it's bunk. I suspect all the H-hype is more about creating investment capital in the energy development industry, seeded with taxpayer dollars under Bush.
Creating Hydrogen fuel cells takes a lot of energy and a lot of Natural gas. There is no fuel cell tree, 98% of hydrogen comes from fossil fuel (mostly natural gas), and converting Natural Gas to Hydrogen does not solve the problem of carbon emissions or fluctuating natural gas prices. As natural gas production peaks in North America the shrinking supply will have the same effect on H-cell prices as an OPEC embargo or Iraq invasion have on crude price volatility today. We've already seen the price of natural gas spike in North America, what do you think will happen when a large chunk of that production is shifted to production of hydrogen creating even greater demand for the resource?
The problem is not fuel, the problem is The Car and it's associated roads, parking lots, junk lots, noise, safety problems, and the psychology of isolation.
The USA not addicted to oil. we are addicted to endless, cheap consumer goods, that we have to haul home in our cars. Lose the shopping habit, get a job in your community rather than 30 miles away, and voila no need for a car. As additional evidence of this addiction witness the growing trade deficit, we're selling out our grandchildren's future so that we may live easily, among shiny objects. We are racoons.
But if you really want to know where tomorrows new cheap fuel is coming from, Google Methane Hydrate Sure it's polluting as hell (though less than crude), yes it's going to cost tons of money to get at it, but that's never stopped energy developers before. They can simply pass their costs on to the taxpayer.
For our homes, we have nuclear energy, Bush admin. unveiled a plan yesterday to sell our nuclear waste to third world countries (Bush calls it recycling nuclear energy). US energy Sec. Sam Bodman said, the nuclear recycling program "brings the promise of virtually limitless energy to emerging economies around the globe, in an environmentally friendly manner while reducing the threat of nuclear proliferation." Bush Nuclear Recycling Program
The Bush nuclear recycling program is not a great idea. Ship america's nuclear waste across the planet to a no-bid Halliburton built, no-bid Bechtel engineered nuclear plant in a cash strapped, debt ridden country? We'll leave it to the local warlord to figure out which village to dump the waste next to once their done with it (how about dumping it near the villages whose inhabitants are against nuclear energy). Don't worry about the shipping accidents off the coast of (major US shipping port). The Bush Admin and the Nuke industry continues to tout Nuclear as "cheap, environmentally safe, friendly." And once the nuclear recycling program is in effect, those ever increasing stretches of closed coastline and dead zones of ocean will be around for millenia.
A huge investment is needed for nuclear, another huge investment is needed for hydrogen, some say the sustainable sources are too expensive to build, and yes there will be a huge investment for those system too, but at least they produce less pollution during operation. Nuclear energy, it seems to me produces the greatest quantity of waste if you factor in toxic lifespan. Hydrogen is a poor solution to a looming problem. A truly sustainable future for America would require a highly diversified energy supply using renewable sources as much as possible (I'd rather be a slave to nature than to Enron), along with conservation, localized energy economies and localized energy grids (so that when there's a meltdown somewhere it doesn't shut off the grid for half the continent) will ensure adequate fuel for generations to come. Meanwhile, I'll keep my bike.
Jon Patrick
Portland, Oregon