A Lot of Hot Air?
Why the hydrogen economy is a bad idea
January / February 2004
David Morris Alternet
Aggressive pursuit of a hydrogen economy, as has been recently
advocated by many environmentalists, is wrongheaded and
shortsighted.
RELATED ARTICLES
As the Clean Air Act gathers dust, air pollution is taking a heavy toll on Americans' health...
Steering aviation toward less pollution...
Rethinking airports from the ground up will improve both the environment and air travel...
A troop drawdown in Iraq could mean more civilian casualties...
It’s time for a radical reorganization of the U.S. military—starting with the not-so-friendly skies...
To understand why, we need to start with the basics. Hydrogen
must be extracted from other materials before it can be of use as
fuel. A wide variety of materials contain hydrogen, which is one
reason it has attracted widespread support. Everyone has a dog in
this fight.
Renewable energy is a very little dog. Environmentalists
envision an energy economy in which hydrogen comes from
electrolyzing water, a process that frees the hydrogen in water
from its bond with oxygen. The energy used to accomplish this would
come from wind. Big dogs like the nuclear industry also foresee a
water-based hydrogen economy, but with nuclear energy as the power
source that electrolyzes water. The trade journal Nucleonics
Week boasts that nuclear power 'is the only way to produce
hydrogen on a large scale without contributing to greenhouse gas
emissions.'
The fossil fuel industry believes that hydrocarbons will provide
most of our future hydrogen. They already have a significant head
start. Almost half of the world's commercial hydrogen now comes
from natural gas. Another 20 percent is derived from coal.
The automobile and oil companies are betting that petroleum will
be the hydrogen source of the future. It was General Motors, after
all, that coined the phrase 'the hydrogen economy.'
What does all this mean? A hydrogen economy will not be a
renewable energy economy. For the next 20 to 50 years, an
overwhelming percentage of our hydrogen will be derived from fossil
fuels or with nuclear energy.
Consider that it has taken more than 30 years for the renewable
energy industry to capture 1 percent of the transportation fuel
market (ethanol) and 2 percent of the electricity market (wind,
solar, biomass). Renewables are poised to rapidly expand their
presence. A hydrogen economy would be a potentially debilitating
diversion: The more aggressively we pursue hydrogen, the less
aggressively we will pursue more beneficial technologies.
To be successful, a hydrogen initiative will require the
expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars to build an entirely
new energy infrastructure (pipelines, fueling stations, automobile
engines). Much of this will come from public money. Little of this
expenditure will directly benefit renewable energy initiatives.
Indeed, it is likely that renewable energy will claim about the
same share of the hydrogen market in 2040 as it now has of the
transportation and electricity markets.