> You should get a copy of Skeptic magazine Vol.14 No.1 2008 
> and read the
> article "The Hydrogen Economy" by Alice Friedemann. The 
> article explains in
> very stark terms what is wrong with hydrogen.

Most of the statements made below are a result of a 
misundertsanding, genuine or contrived, on the part of the 
writer.
Substitute the word "battery" in most cases and the 
obviousness of the statements will become true. Perhaps 
reword somewhat for the technology in use.

> The author states that
> increasing the average overall fuel economy of vehicles 
> would be the best
> place to spend our money.

That involves using up petroleum. Yes, there is quite a lot 
left. So what? It is a valuable resource that has many uses 
apart from powering vehicles.

A problem with the invisible hand (also seen as an 
advantage) is that it is blind to all but the advantage of 
the moment. It has no interest in your children's children, 
or even or your children, OR even in you if you do not by 
your actions influence the profitiability of its actions. If 
YOU (and your component of the invisible hand) care about 
your children's children or even about other people's 
childrens children, then you can influence current actions 
of others by making these distant people part of the 
equation by your action. This is an entirely valid part of 
the actions of "the hand". It has no morals, no eyes and no 
brains per se. It is the sum total of "interested action" 
and no part of that action is more or less "valid" than any 
other - just more or less effective. Those who seek to make 
profit from utilising the fading dregs of the earth's oil 
reserves (or the bouneous magnificence of its vast remaining 
supplies)(choose your perspective) can have no complaint 
about bleeding heart greens / magnificent eco-warriors 
(choose your perspective) who seek to alter their path. (It 
is of course none of their business/their right to care) BUT 
the would be users they can seek to elnist the vested self 
interest of others / plain common sense to attempt to 
influence the path.

So, anyone who says "would be the best place ..." needs to 
have their assumption set (and their undestanding of the 
technical issues) visible for their opionion to be able to 
be judged. It's clear from the short quote that Alice F' 
does not have an adequate technical understanding of her 
subject.

> Here is part of the conclusion section:
>
> "The laws of physics mean the hydrogen economy will always 
> be an energy
> sink.

Of course. Would you expect net energy out of eg a car 
battery (lead acid . NimH/LiIon) ?

> Hydrogen's properties require you to spend more energy 
> than you can
> earn,

Of course. It's an energy transpirt medium. For Alice to 
argue this several times over makes it seem that she is 
trying to con stupid people, or mislead ignorant people.

> because in order to get it you must overcome water's 
> hydrogen-oxygen
> bond,

It's usually called "charging the battery".
ALL secondary batteries have this propery.
Primary batteries are not of relevance here.

> move heavy cars,

If she really wrote that then she is indeed a con artist.
Why not write 'move heavy trucks", or trains or ocean 
liners. Moving whatever is the object of the exercise. Why 
is eg petrol better at moving "heavy cars".

>prevent leaks and brittle metals,

Very true. Those are two of the major challenges of Hydrogen 
energy transport engineering. That's well known. Listing the 
engineering challenges is fine. But itemising them in a 
summary along with "'move heavy cars" is less satisfactory.

> and transport  hydrogen to the destination.

And? This is about a portable energy transportation medium. 
It has to be got to where people transport it. Hydrogen, 
unlike eg petroleum, can have its energy "inserted" at 
whatever location makes bests ense. This can be at eg 
Boulder dam, where the electricity used travels avery short 
distance by wire and a long way by tanker or pipeline, at eg 
Tucson where the sublight converter (PV, thermal, algae, 
...) delivers Hydrogen to said tanker and pipeline near 
source, Baja where wave action ..., OR near LA, NY, Cape 
Cod, ... where EHV power lines have carried the energy 
hundreds or thousands of miles from source, or a short 
distance from a fission plant, or a fusion plant, or a hydro 
plant, or a COAl (agh :-) ) plant or ... Unlike petroleum, 
which is tankered etc all the way from kuwait, or Texas, or 
Venezuela or ... Hydrogen can, if we develop the technology 
to suit, be produced at whatever location. It's a new type 
of battery. A hydrogen battery. It has issues. It's 
imperfect. If there was an obviously better one the hand 
would find it (or will). If using up oil is cheaper the hand 
will try to do that instead. Whether it's Hydrogen or the 
rest of the oil is more a matter of what value we all on 
average place on the oil long term than what is technically 
"best".

I think that even the choir may have left by now.

> It doesn't matter if all of these problems are
> solved, or how much money is spent. You will use more 
> energy to create,
> store, and transport hydrogen than you will ever get out 
> of it."

There she goes again / still !!!!
It's a battery. A BATTERY.
It's not meant to be an energy source. It's a way of 
providing portable energy. Look at it in those terms and 
start again.


        Russell.

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist