For years, there’s been steam gathering behind movements to convert from fossil fuels to hydrogen-based energy systems. After all, Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, right? Not only that, but its byproducts are harmless, and even beneficial: water and heat. Doesn’t being both clean and abundant make it a perfect energy source? Unfortunately, there are many problems concerning hydrogen, which most people are blissfully unaware of.
The biggest problem concerning it is production. While it is true that hydrogen is the most abundant element in our universe, as well as on this planet, the sad fact is that it is never found in isolated form. It can be found in water, in soil, in plant and animal life, but always as a compound. And chemical bonds (in most cases, which includes hydrogen) require energy to break. Where does that energy come from? Natural gas and fossil fuels such as coal.
Just as bad is its volume. Being a gas, it is far less dense, and requires sufficiently larger amounts of space to store it than do our current sources of energy. Dirty or not, fossil fuels are quite compact. Hydrogen, on the other hand, provides significantly less energy per unit of volume. While it can be compressed into liquid before distribution, this once again requires energy–the bulk of which is provided by fossil fuels.
Does this offset the benefits? Probably not. However, there are significant obstacles to its adoption which few Americans have been informed of. And as a professional devil’s advocate (as Jordi has titled me), I suppose it’s my job to change that.
Amy Tee | 20-Feb-04 at 10:32 am | Permalink
Is it possible to make the first batch of hydrogen with fossil fuels, and then the next hydrogen batch with the hydrogen that has been created previously? Perhaps, eventually, the creation of hydrogen would come solely from the use of hydrogen as the fuel — or at least use a combination of the hydrogen and fossil fuels to reduce pollution?
I just stumbled across your journal through a community in orkut and just wanted to leave a note.
Stephen Touset | 20-Feb-04 at 11:20 am | Permalink
I believe we could, but there would be so much of the hydrogen energy lost that very little would ever be produced. Last I checked, somewhere around 90% would be used simply to maintain the process.
Jordi | 21-Feb-04 at 1:16 pm | Permalink
Well, even if it was a 90%, worse than that, the amount of “profit” energy would slowly decrease, right?
Otherwise, you’d have a perpetual motion machine, or whatever they’re called (I just woke up).