I love fuel cells in theory -- quiet, clean. And in many places they will have uses. For example that sewage processng center that produces methane that otherwise is a toxic nuisance can be harnessed for electricity -- fabulous! Or potentially fabulous, because many fuel cell technolgies still need expensive (if recyclable) platinum.
And there are many competing fuel cell technologies and I am only partly informed about most of them. Some (such as the cermaic "SOFC" type) can burn many types of hydrocarbons (hydrogen or keroscene, diesel, etc.) and give off a lot of heat which, if you can use the heat, is good thing. The research keeps advancing without becoming really practical yet for most uses, but there's certainly hope they will have a role to play. There is even a technoloy that IS an energy source -- the use of borax which when heated gives off hydrogen, so it's a net energy source (see the struggling company with the trading symbol "MCEL"). Unfortunately, there is not much borax in the world, but in a small way it might contribute.
BUT HERE's THE PROBLEM, AND IT IS LU LU: today we get hydrogen mainly two ways: from natural gas as a feedstock (this is the easiest way, since natural gas chemically is just hydrogen and carbon); OR to "crack" water using electricity made from fossil fuels or from nuclear energy.
But natural gas is in short supply -- it may be our biggest energy problem!!!! It will peak after oil, but after that it is likely not to just decline, but to to disappear in a few years!! (It's a vapor so it doesn't stick to wells; when it's gone, it's gone: poof!) The last thing we need is another demand on natural gas. And keep in mind, it is more efficient to just burn natural gas than to convert it into hydrogen AND then convert it into electricity AND then to make an electric motor go. For each conversion you lose energy.
Using electricity to crack water is just as bad. Uranium is likely to peak in 25 or so years (forgetting breeder reactors which haven't worked well or safely) just based on the nuclear plants the world has now. Coal is likely to peak in about 40 years just based on the uses we have for it now. So to use those things to make electricity, and then crack water to get hydrogen to then make electricity in a fuel cell is madness.
Making hydrogen HUGELY ACCELERATES OUR USE OF FOSSIL AND NUCLEAR FUELS. That makes fuel cells the exact opposite of what we need. It drives us to energy depletion more quickly and it drives me nuts. We've spent 100's of millions of dollars during the past 20 years as we rush to peak oil on 100% exactly the wrong technology. Our house is on fire, we can feel the flames licking the floorboards beneath our feet and at any moment the economic and social and monetary chaos of an oil addicted world facing depletion is about to peek through and fry our collective butts. But we don't notice because in this time of imminent emergency, we are busy inventing really fantastic cigar lighters.
I love fuel cells, but the passion for them could not have come along at a worse time.
- Charles |
