theyeti

Hydrogen fuel is not a new source of energy. It's a different delivery mechanism for the same energy. The question is whether or not we can deliver that energy with less pollution and near-equal efficiency. I don't know. I assume that turning fossil fuels into hydrogen -- whether through direct extraction or through electrolysis -- will be less efficient than burning those fuels directly. As I see it, here are the advantages that hydrogen opens up:

1. Cars can be fueled from any energy source rather than just gasoline.

2. Cars will not emit pollutants themselves, which prevents localized pollution problems such as smog.

Unfortunately, that's about it. I don't think that hydrogen per se will do anything to ameliorate global warming or do much to stop regional pollution, since until we exploit new energy sources we'll still be using coal and oil, probably less efficiently than now. Only once we fully exploit new energy sources like wind, or increase our production from nuclear, will there be a reduction in pollution/CO2 emissions. The good thing about hydrogen is that it will allow other energy sources to fuel automobiles, which have until now been monopolized by oil. I think the Bush administration is mostly interested in being able to scale-back oil imports by relying on coal and nuclear to provide energy for cars, thus lowering our dependance on foreign oil. Unfortunately, without some investments in wind or the willingness to build new nuclear plants, this won't help the environment. And then there's my cynical side, which says that Bush is just doing this for the placebo effect.

theyeti

Nataraja

But at least this way phasing out this infernal reliance on foreign oil is more than just a pipe dream. My own area runs on energy from a nuclear power plant. Places in which having clean energy sources locally is ill-supported or just unrealistic would have access to imported feul. We could erect production plants that are entirely dependant upon clean energy sources, say, in the middle of the desert and the product could wind up in places like, say, LA. Then we could get all the long-hairs, hippies, hipsters, concerned citizens, New Age syncretists, Lennonites, asthma cases, victims of acid rain, health nuts, and anyone else who might care to help us boycott the oil barons and other such monkeys until it becomes possible to outlaw unclean energy sources altogether. My lowest realistic estimate for something like that happening would be thirty years. Earth is a tough old bird, she'll live.

sourdough

I thought most of our electric power comes from hydroelectric powerplants?

Undercurrent

I think that depends on the specific definition of "our"

Northern Quebec is probably largely hydroelectric. If I recall, Ontario has a good base of nuclear as well, but there are still many coal-burning plants, even providing the majority of power in some places, IIRC.

One actual (possible) environmental benefit of using hydrogen as a delivery mechanism for otherwise generated power, not mentioned by theyeti, is the ability to take advantage of economies of scale in production. It's not feasible to build a hydorelectric plant into every single car, but building a big one that indirectly powers thousands is feasible.

Similarly, a technology that allows for the cleaner generation of energy from petrolium is more likely to be cheaper per kWh when applied to a big power plant, rather than to an individual internal combustion engine.

Abacus

Maybe in Canada, but not in the U.S.

Abacus

Okay, I hadn't thought of that.

Does anybody have any idea if CO2 emmissions be contained?

Shake

In reference to "most of our electricity" coming from hydroelectric sources:
Well no, not most, but it depends where you are. My area of NY state, though not my particular town for some odd reason, gets most of its electrical power from Niagara Falls. Areas surrounding dams (there is one about 45 min. south of here) also benefit from hydroelectric power generation.

Out about 20 miles east of me, a small-ish business put up a huge windmill, which supplies about 2/3 of the electricity that they need. There is also a nuclear power plant out that way.

Not too awful long ago, there was something in the paper about a business that was successfully taking advantage of solar power to (at least aid in) get their electrical power. The kicker was at the end, that this business was in Buffalo, NY! This part of the country averages cloudy days in the hundreds per year!

theyeti

An economy of scale isn't going to help here, because in the end it's still an internal combustion engine burning hydrogen for each individual driver. We're not talking about burning huge amounts of hydrogen for electricity, we're talking about converting oil or coal into hydrogen, and then using that to power each individual car. The only question is if you get more energy (or cheaper energy) by turing oil into hydrogen than you would by turning it into gasoline. I doubt this is the case, but if it is, then it would be worthwhile. And this almost certainly won't happen by producing electricity and then using that for electrolysis -- it will have to be through direct extraction.

theyeti

Yggdrasill

This does not surprise me, solar panels don't require direct sunlight. They do however work better in direct sunlight.

Colander of Truth

Not only that, it is an excellent storage medium for electricity. Usually, we think of a battery, but size becomes a cost and practical engineering limitation. How much hydrogen gas can fit in a tank? The answer is: how big is the tank? Tanks are pretty low tech, no?

Also, since electrical energy usage is cyclical (daily), nighttime cheap wholesale rates can be tapped to produce hydrogen wherever, by using our existing transmission lines to distribute the energy where it's needed.

Lastly, if hydrogen is created by coal-fired electricity, then at least the generator's emissions can be dealt with much more easily than if it were 100,000 individual cars.

I can't wait for BIG HYDROGEN.