From the Gorilla Game thread:
There seems to be some interest in fuel cells, so.... I'll continue with some thoughts. And a rant.
First, there already is a company that markets fuel cells for home use. They run off natural gas, not pure hydrogen. Apparently, all you need is a source of hydrogen, even if it comes mixed with other stuff (Let's see, 1 carbon and 4 hydrogen make...uh... CH4 which is natural gas <G>). The byproducts are carbon dioxide and water. I'm not too interested in this technology, but it does exist right now. And it does decentralize at least home electricity use. You get greenhouse gasses but not nitrous oxide, sulphur dioxide, etc, etc, etc. as you do with combustion.
One automobile fuel cell idea is fueled by natural gas.
Of course you don't get as much energy out of even a hydrogen fuel cell as you put into producing the hydrogen in the first place. Perpetual motion this ain't. I'd argue that using petroleum to produce the energy that produces the hydrogen for fuel cells is a bad bargain. Kind of like those electric hand dryers that used to be labeled "pollution free". That's not the point.
The point is whether the sources of renewable energy can get the energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed. Our current infrastructure is designed to have incredibly concentrated power production facilities, think gigawatt power plants or huge hydroelectric dams. As well, we're not really able to store electricity for future use. We have to be able to generate it at need. It's conceivable that we could use hydrogen as the storage/transport medium.
Why my focus on renewable energy? Because it's free. Current (petroleum-based) power plants, as I understand, spend 40%-60% (my memory is weak) of their expenses on fuel. Of course, the equipment to harvest renewable energy is not free, and we can debate all day long about the actual economics of what's currently being tried. But the argument is compelling. Assuming that my equipment doesn't break down, once I've erected my WECS, the power coming from it is essentially free. Forever. Of course, maintenance costs must be factored in, but the wind never suffers price fluctuations.
The problem here, of course, is that the wind isn't steady. Nor is the sun, most places. So we have to have some storage mechanism. Hydrogen may fit the bill.
All that said, we're a long way from a practical, proven system. Not to mention the infrastructure. Let's claim that we instantly had a viable technology for producing unlimited hydrogen from wind/waves/sun. What would we do with it? How do you manage to go down to your local gas station and say "fill 'er up with hydrogen bud"? I contend that this is one of the most interesting problems, and one of the hardest to solve. Although BMW has an internal-combustion engine that runs on liquid hydrogen and they seem to be making that work.... Allegedly nice performance too......
Which brings me to, I guess, the end of my meandering. Someday, sometime, I sincerely believe that we'll be at the point of switching to a hydrogen-driven economy. I may live to see it begin. But I can't imagine investing in such companies just yet. There is no tornado on the horizon, no compelling (non-ecological) reason consumers even should care, much less require a particular company's products.
Political rant here... we can't even seem to decide on decent CAFE standards for automobiles. We'd rather fight wars (I'm talking Desert Shield/Storm here) than exercise the political will to reward conservation/alternative energy rather than consumption (Ever heard of SUVs?). Unless/until petroleum-based products get MUCH more expensive, the only way I see renewable-energy competing is in niche markets. I could also rant about the subsidies you and I pay oil companies (ever heard of the "oil depletion allowance"?), but I probably shouldn't.
Sorry for all the meandering, but I don't post very often, so when I do I feel a little better about going on and on and on and on. Especially off-topic.
Best
Erick |
