Because of the current fuel-based technology of cars, renewable fuels, like biofuels, are quite popular. As I showed in one of my earlier posts, though, biofuels still emit carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, upon combustion. In contrast, hydrogen promises to emit no carbon dioxide emissions, becoming the cleanest fuel available. For those with a basic understanding of chemistry, hydrogen, upon combustion, produces, apart from energy, only water. Water is key to life on Earth, and, if the hydrogen is pure, the water will share that purity, which may allow people to drink that water. However, that approach may be impractical or expensive, and scientists probably did not use that idea to promote hydrogen use. On the contrary, the lack of harmful emissions likely contributed heavily to the concept of hydrogen use, and, with time, the fuel may become useful.
Unfortunately, hydrogen power is extremely problematic, as forty-eight percent of all hydrogen production is met with natural gas through Steam Methane Reforming, or SMR, which, unsurprisingly, also produces carbon dioxide. This method, despite its drawbacks, may serve as an effective transition to more environmentally friendly methods of hydrogen production. In fact, researchers have developed a process where solar energy is used to split water into hydrogen and oxygen, which can be combusted later. However, if the costs of this use of solar energy are too high, then the photovoltaic cells I discussed in an earlier post may prove more effective. Additionally, effective hydrogen combustion requires a fuel cell, which is commonly associated with a fuel cell vehicle. Fuel cell vehicles use hydrogen stored in high-pressure tanks, but can also use fuels such as natural gas and gasoline via a "reformer," which converts those fuels into hydrogen. This property may also aid in transitioning to renewable energy, and the high-pressure tanks could be used in other cars for natural gas combustion to significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Ultimately, the fuel cell has remarkably similar properties to the battery of a Plug-in Hybrid, which I have elaborated on in an earlier post. Both technologies can potentially aid in eliminating greenhouse gas emissions, and both grant the world some flexibility in adapting to renewable energy. Each technology serves as a step in a long, winding staircase, but one technology may prove less expensive, which may halt progress on the other technology. However, scientists should research both technologies, despite the higher price in that approach, so if one technology becomes unexpectedly less effective, then the world will not fall behind in technological development, allowing humanity to preserve the Earth without risk, and the Earth is far too precious to risk to chance.
8 comments:
tommy,
Maybe I'm just thining like a simpleton when I make the claim that hydrogen is extremely flammable. Say that an experimenter drove two different cars into a wall, one had natural gas and one had hydrogen. Which one would make a bigger explosion? Also how could the engineers who make this hydrogen engine make the water purer?
duckblogger
Duckblogger,
You are correct in the claim that hydrogen is flammable, just as most fuels are. On crashing the cars you mentioned, those cars might not spontaneously burst in flames, and likely possess reinforced cages to prevent such a scenario. In such a scenario, though, the explosive potential of those cars depends on the amount of flammable gas stored in the high-pressure tanks. Finally, only purified hydrogen and oxygen is required to produce purified water.
Tommy
I think this is a very good topic. my only question is what are the plans for storing the hydrogen? Since exposure to hydrogen makes many metals brittle is there a cost effective method to storing it?
Tommy,
great blog. I simply have a few questions. How much would it cost to make all cars run on Hydrogen? Would there even be a way to convert cars that are now running on gasoline into cars that run solely on hydrogen? And would you get hydrogen like at a pump, similar to a gas pump? Thanks!
-Emily
Student,
Right now, hydrogen is probably stored in high-pressure tanks similar to those in fuel cell vehicles. I do not know the cost of this method, but hydrogen not under high pressure would take much more space in a car, making the fuel ineffective.
Tommy
Emily,
Judging from the lack of fuel cell vehicles on the market, those cars are likely expensive. I do not think that gasoline-fueled cars can be converted to fuel cell vehicles, since the high-pressure tanks and fuel cell would require a reconfiguration of the vehicle, likely making the transition expensive as well. Finally, judging from the picture I provided at the beginning of the post, fuel cell vehicles likely refill on hydrogen via pumps, but the technology will likely differ from gas pumps because of the gaseous nature of hydrogen and the high-pressure tanks.
Tommy
As a literary scholar and not an economist or businesswoman, I find myself in a similar position to yours when thinking about your evolution of thought, Tommy. I know there must be a complex web of implications I don't quite understand, and therefore what I think should happen is difficult to construct. However, it seems to me that if during and right after the Depression our country can not only build an atomic weapons program AND the most powerful armaments industry in the world that we can help shepherd industries through the very expensive initial period of research development for greener technologies. We being some sort of private/public partnership. I see it as much an issue of imaginative thinking by industry and government and citizenry as political will, though of course the two are twined. It seems that this partnership and effort would expand industry at home, thus creating jobs, renewed commitment to education, and a greener world.
It may be that this process produces as yet unimagined technology and that hydrogen or avenues we're pursuing are untenable. That seems to me still to be a worthy investment of our enormous wealth. I find myself puzzled as to why this seems like a Panglossian view.
Leslie,
Certainly, America's accomplishments during and after the Great Depression were massive and worthy of recognition. Given the fact that the conditions during the Depression were much worse than the conditions in this economic crisis, America could certainly achieve such a high goal again. The environmental challenges to renewable energy, though, are slightly different from the challenges of the Depression. Granted, those challenges were both scientific, but in the Depression, America was developing weapons, in addition to restoring the economy. Now, America is attempting to restore its economy and eliminate its dependence on fossil fuels by resolving many issues facing renewable energy, some of which I have described in earlier posts. However, you are definitely correct in your view on private and public partnerships, and work on renewable energy would certainly create jobs and heal the Earth. I do not believe, though, that your view is Panglossian, as your approach is entirely reasonable and well-thought, not overly optimistic.
Tommy
Post a Comment