Most of the so-called sources of alternative energy are, at best, transitional in nature. By "transitional," I mean that they can carry us from the hydrocarbon era into something entirely new.
By "entirely new" I mean such things as zero-point energy. (I know an esteemed aerospace engineer who attests to having seen one of these operating steadily for two weeks on a tabletop in a black ops project), cold fusion (I know a US Naval Research Laboratory physicist who's catalogued evidence that it's real), hot fusion (I own stock in a company that's achieved 1 billion degrees Celsius), a Tesla-based technology that uses the ionosphere as a capacitor and others.
Meanwhile, what of transitional technologies?
Superior ways to sequester the harmful byproducts of coal-fired plants can extend the life of this hydrocarbon fuel for another century or more - though few of the new plants under construction are planning to use such technologies.
Solar-wind hybrid plants such as the novel "tower of power" now planned for the Australian Outback are another promising possibility, as are solar power satellites: essentially, huge panels of solar cells positioned in space, beaming power to Earth via lasers or microwaves.
Improved ground-based solar cells are another promising transitional technology, with efficiencies of as much as 30% and the potential to be sprayed on like paint.
One much ballyhooed technology that makes little sense is the so-called hydrogen economy. Why? Consider what is required to produce hydrogen as fuel.
It must be extracted from something, usually by splitting water into oxygen and hydrogen. How is this done? You guessed it: An alternative energy source is consumed to generate the power required for splitting. That fuel source will almost always be coal, oil or natural gas. So what's the point?
It's true that hydrogen burns clean wherever it is burned. But you've got to burn a lot of dirty fuel to make this "clean" fuel. Therein lies the rub. Instead of truly reducing global pollution, hydrogen shifts it from populated areas to less populated ones. While this benefit may help to reduce urban smog, it does nothing on balance to reduce the toxic emissions spewing into the earth's atmosphere.
It merely shifts the problems.
A new analysis published on the prestigious Physorg.com shows why hydrogen doesn't now make sense and will not in the future, at least compared with other alternative energy sources.
Ulf Bossel, author of the study, summarized his findings: "More energy is needed to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds than can ever be recovered from its use. Therefore, making the new chemical energy carrier [hydrogen] from natural gas would not make sense, as it would increase the gas consumption and the emission of CO2. Instead, the dwindling fossil fuel reserves must be replaced by energy from renewable sources."
Essentially, his analysis of a hydrogen economy demonstrates that high energy losses are unavoidable, due to the laws of physics. On balance, these mean that a hydrogen economy will never be a viable replacement for fossil fuels.
He states, "The advantages of hydrogen praised by journalists (nontoxic, burns to water, abundance of in the universe, etc.) are misleading, because the production of hydrogen depends on the availability of energy and water, both of which are increasingly rare and may become political issues, as much as oil and natural gas are today."
He blames the "Presidential [hydrogen] Initiative" for substituting politics for science, and argues that a lot of the research now being done is essentially scientists prostituting themselves for directed research grants.
Essentially, the core problem lies in the fact that turning something such as water, biomass or natural gas into hydrogen and then finding a way to transport that hydrogen that's safe (i.e., nonflammable), such as in the form of metal-hydrogen hydrides, consumes more energy than would be used to simply generate electricity in the first place. Both trucks and pipelines are far less efficient means of transporting hydrogen than is the case for natural gas or oil; they are only half as efficient.
Storage is similarly problematic. Hydrogen must be bled off from storage containers to avoid risks of explosions. This means that after two weeks, a car would lose half of its fuel, regardless of whether it's being driven.
Bossel consistently found that the energy input required for extraction, preparation, transportation and execution exceeds the output of alternative energy sources by a factor of three or more. Essentially, this means that at least three times the hydrogen would have to enter the pipeline to do the work of oil with comparable BTU potential.
Regrettably, this is not amenable to technological improvement but is due to the properties of hydrogen itself – specifically its low density and extremely low boiling point, which raises the energy cost of compression or liquefaction and the investment costs of storage.
Can hydrogen be salvaged as a fuel source? I wouldn't bet on it, not unless a transformational breakthrough develops something such as algae that converts biomass directly into hydrogen, and does so in small, easily managed batches near the point of consumption.
Meanwhile, many promising and exciting new alternative energy technologies are moving from the drawing board to early- stage development.
Related Articles:
P.S. to get The Daily Reckoning direct to your inbox sign up to our free e-mail newsletter or if you prefer to use RSS, subscribe to the Daily Reckoning RSS feed.
Related Articles:
- None Found
Pingback by Ecotality » A Bridge to Something Better on 17 January 2007:
[...] The Daily Reckoning, which describes itself as “a freewheeling site for libertarians, gold bugs and doom enthusiasts of every stripe,” says hydrogen is not the alternative energy answer. [...]
Comment by Arnold on 2 February 2007:
Chemical burns are rather dangerous. At a burn an acid we process a place of a burn a solution of soda, at a burn alkali + weak vinegar, a boric acid, apple or grape juice; then we wash out a lot of water. WBR LeoP
Comment by mike holt on 2 March 2008:
Australia is the easiest place on earth to be energy self sufficient. You have an outback which is hot most of the year and very sunny all year. You can create wind by covering 1,000 acres with a glass and funnel system. Use about 9 funnel cylinders with about 30 wind turbines around each cylinder base. The cylinders would be about 100 meters high with many paddle wheel type turbines going up the cylinder. Coate the windows and frame with the gallium coating that turns sunlight into electricity.
This design which incorporates many funnnels instead of just one huge open funnel will be very hard for a terrorist to destroy, and many more turbines will be in play.
Who is in charge of your funnel electricity project can I talk with from Australia?
Thank you,
Mike Holt
Comment by Pete Tousignant on 11 November 2009:
There are some valid points in this article but he has not done his homework. If you truly understand what you looking at, you haven't diplayed it in your article. This system along with others that are out there produce hho gas only on demand. It can be safe and you are not wasting electricity to conduct electrolysis. You are only using extra power the alternater will create weathere you use it or not. HHO gas is almost 4 times the power of Hydrogen, it can be very safe and allow a much better combustion of gasoline in your car. Keep in mind this, the care engine is only 20 - 30 efficient.. that is why it emits so much carbon monoxide... incomplete combustion. The HHO along with the gas allows a much more efficient combustion.
Comment by Bob Volk on 20 October 2010:
While I agree to your premise that pure hydrogen is not the answer for our transitional technologies, I will vehemently argue the point when it comes to hydrogen in the form of HHO, also referred to as on-demand hydrogen.
This form is actually more energetic (because you are injecting 34% oxygen in with the hydrogen); is only made as the vehicle is running- no dangerous storage tanks or expensive infrastructure needed; requires only a little maintenance every few months to drain and refill the system (just like oil); requires only distilled water and a few tablespoons of an over the counter electrolyte found at most hardware stores.
There is more and more data being accumulated to prove the efficacy of these type of units in reducing emissions by 35-75% and increasing mileage. The industry standard is 20-40% increases, but many of our customers have seen as much as 212% increase (not typical- but very cool when it happens). All this for under $1000 for most kits today.
Unlike pure hydrogen that can cause micro cracking in the metal of the engine (embrittlement), on demand hydrogen injects at 100-140 degrees, so no refrigerated, compressed gas is going into the engine.
Also, there are no major, expensive modifications to the engine or car needed to accomplish this, unlike hydrogen engines which frequently need ceramic parts or coatings.
So, while this is still a new industry, it is quickly growing and I fully believe it will be a major force in societies "Transitional Technologies". I know first hand, because we are in the middle of negotiating major contracts for our particular line of products, both here in the US, in Canada, and in several other countries where we are in the final stages of negotiating the partnership agreements.
On demand hydrogen generators are her to stay- and they are a viable resource to be looked into, as the industry becomes a powerhouse in alternative energy industry.
I won't put links in this post out of respect for your policies, but I have plenty of evidence to back up what I say from our customers on my blog to actual emissions reports.
I'd be glad to discuss it further with you at any time...
Comment by Don on 20 October 2010:
Please go away Bob. Your scam is well known throughout the internet and we really don't need your spambot here. For everyone else - google this dudes name and scam or alternatively check out an article "hydrogen on demand fuel saving devices a scam" - an article in a nz paper where a detailed study was done on this time and money wasting device - except of course for Bob here.
For you Bob, google "Thermodynamics for Dummies" or some equivalent and start reading.
Comment by rick e on 20 October 2010:
Love it around the cycle goes again
There is a way and patented device look it up you can make one. You replace your spark plug and it runs off water. It fractures the water in the cylinder making hydrogen and oxygen and there is your fuel as simple as that or is it?
You can find the inventor on you tube also.
Comment by Biker Pete on 20 October 2010:
Once knew a sportshop owner who filled his motorcycle crankcase with water!
Got zero kilometres to the litre sometime after that... .
Comment by Ned S on 20 October 2010:
Sounds like a young lady I knew many years ago who filled her car radiator with engine oil. And yes, she was blonde. And yes, she was drop dead gorgeous. But no, I never felt inclined to ask her out on a date.
Comment by Biker on 20 October 2010:
Sounds like the blonde who asked what the 710 cap on her engine was, mate!~
(She was reading it upside down...)
Stopped getting my scuba tanks filled at that fella's diveshop, Ned!~