Issue Ten: Will Hydrogen End Our Fossil Fuel Addiction?

“Will Hydrogen End Our Fossil Fuel Addiction?”

Authors: David L. Bodde and Michael Behar

1. (2pts) Definitions. List the important new terms and concepts used by the author. Define terms with which you were not familiar. Circle those that you think need clarification and discussion. Minimum 4.

a. distributed production – the product is produced at the location in which it is distributed.

b. carbon sequestration – the process of removing carbon from the atmosphere.

c. effluent – pollution

d. nascent – coming or having come recently into existence.

2. (4pts) Summary. In your own words, summarize the themes and key points developed in this chapter, article, or section of an assigned book. Write as if you were the author telling another educated person what you were trying to say in the assigned piece. In this section, do not give your opinion. Present the arguments and themes of the assigned author.

The positive argument, by David Bodde, is that a hydrogen-based society is waiting in the wings, and that the only problem will be in the transition. He says that the “present competes against the future” in that the implementation of any new energy technology has always been stagnated by what we are accustomed to. Another significant problem posed for hydrogen fueled vehicles is that the supply-demand chain would have to be immediately developed. This is not very likely in regards to any market. Suppliers need investors, who will only invest if there is large demand. Consumers will not purchase such technology if they cannot fuel up at convenient locations. Therein lies the problem.

To overcome this, the National Academy of Sciences came up with a plan to offer hydrogen fuel through distributed production. The negatives of such production are that the fuel would initially be two to five times the cost of regular gasoline and that, for the beginning of such development, carbon would be released during production.

Of course, everything needs to be paid for. Distributed production of hydrogen could be paid for through subsidizing the cost of the production or by raising the cost of the competition (gasoline, diesel).

He also discussed the problem of leaking fuel. One alternative to this could be by generating the fuel in the vehicle, like Daimler-Chrysler demonstrated with their sodium borohydride system.

The benefits of hydrogen fuel are probably already known to the reader, but here’s a list:

Decreased dependence upon oil leads to increased security for the U.S.

Decreased dependence upon any fossil fuels leads to a better environment state.

Use of hydrogen in place of oil removes the fear of shortages.

Decreased competition with other nations for oil, which implies a lower cost, better foreign relations, as hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.

The negative argument, by Michael Behar, states that the transition is not only technological but also political and financial. He also says that the chances of getting there are very slim.

Behar argues that while hydrogen is abundant, it’s not so abundant here on Earth. We would have to use measures to extract it. And these measures are energy-costly. This energy that it takes to extract hydrogen is most likely not going to be environmentally friendly. While the cars and houses will not be emitting greenhouse gases, the power plants will still be.

U.S. water consumption would also increase by 10%, as the water needed for the electrolysis would require 4.2 trillion gallons of water a year. Researchers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory figure that our atmospheric hydrogen would increase four to eight times because of hydrogen leaks. Hydrogen is a gas and can leak through the tiniest of holes. Great efforts will have to be made in order to prevent leaking from consumer products. As we don’t get our cars checked too often, this is something that would have to be very strong in the beginning, with little chance for problems. These results are contested, however, and considered to be too large of an estimate. Behar states that the result of any increase in hydrogen in our atmosphere would result in more cloud cover, which could accelerate global warming.

Behar doesn’t believe that the U.S. is even committed to hydrogen technology, as we’re “only” spending $1.2 billion on it. By comparison, $1.5 billion is being spent on “healthy marriages” and $3.9 billion for a month in Iraq. Also, the massive effort it would take to convert our society to a hydrogen based one, he argues, is not realistic.

Regardless of whether or not we use hydrogen or nuclear power or an unforeseen alternative energy source, we need to make changes now. There is no debate over that. Greenhouse gases are piling up and the planet is warming up. If we do not make changes now to save our climate and our planet, we could be facing huge changes or extinction.

3. (3pts) Creative Reaction and Integration. Record some of your own ideas that came to you as you were reading and thinking about the issue or issues the author is discussing. Formulate these in well-written sentences, develop them as best you can, and relate them to the author’s discussion and possibly to other readings and course themes.

I am amazed that statistics can be twisted to fit agendas. My jaw dropped when I read about how we’re “only” spending $1.2 billion on researching hydrogen fuel. That’s a very significant amount of money. He compared that sum to the cost of the war in Iraq, so of course it’s going to look low.

Hydrogen leaks never occurred to me. But I had heard about how much more fuel mileage we would get on hydrogen than we presently have on gasoline. Behar insists it is not true with hydrogen as a gas, but it would be possible if we used liquid hydrogen. Of course, this requires a temperature of -253 degrees Celsius. That would only be possible for our space missions.

I was aware of hydrolysis, the process in which hydrogen is split from water molecules using water. However, I was not aware of extracting hydrogen from fossil fuels. If we used this method, wouldn’t this just prolong the rape of our planet?

4. (2pts) Opinion – Not graded, 2 points awarded if completed.

I am excited about hydrogen fuel and think it’s going to revolutionize our society. I do not like the idea of the oil giants controlling hydrogen, but in reality, they are the only ones who have the financial capability of researching and implementing such a change. But, wouldn’t it be great if we would never have to fill up? If the process could occur in our cars, we’d only have to get some water every month, instead of every week! How spectacular would that be?