Fuel cells trump just about any other material or process for the title of "Holy Grail" in alternative fuels.
Why?
Well, for one thing, they're really aren't that many alternatives to begin with. The criteria for powering millions of vehicles around the world, billions of miles every minute of every day are simply astounding. The fact that we have achieved this at all is really one of technology's most miraculous accomplishments. To think that the internal combustion engine (or any power resource with this capability) would have unlimited, natural fuel resources and/or no side effects for the environment is to redefine ignorance.
Let's consider the numbers for a moment. There are roughly 700 million cars on the planet. In 2004, the average horsepower rating (in the US) was 227. If we were to assume that horsepower ratings were similar everywhere, the internal combustion engine is currently producing a simply mind-boggling 159 billion horsepower. And this doesn't take into account, large trucks, machines, recreational vehicles, etc…
Yes, they were really on to something with that first engine.
Anyway, another reason that fuel cells are seemingly the "tops" is that they appear to be unachievable. To this I say, many things once looked "simply outside the realm of possibility," including landing a vessel on Mars, building a computer that can make 36.01 trillion calculations per second, and electing Dubya to the White House, …twice. Trust me, at this point, anything can happen. If we can imagine it, then we can do it.
And we really aren't that far off. The cars already exist and we know what needs to be done. Sure, the per mile cost to a consumer for running one of these things is currently several thousand dollars, but that is really just a question of scale. What concerned me more, was all this talk that the only by-product of the fuel cell technology was heat and water.
In my CNN, Fox News, end o' the world trained mind, I immediately picture the busiest California freeways, quickly turning into torrents of cascading, scalding water making the roadways much like Cedar Point's White Water Landing ride as millions of cars gush water out their tailpipes with the force of Geneva's Jet d'eau fountain.
Apparently, the amount of water they are talking about isn't quite so substantial. As a matter of fact, the water really amounts to about the same that is currently produced with our gasoline-powered cars. Geraldo will be disappointed.
In the end, the wide adoption of fuel cells will be every bit the marvel that the internal combustion engine is today. And, as we have clearly seen, every alternative has its drawbacks. Can you imagine the manure of 159 billion horses?
The real problem with hydrogen is that it takes more energy to split the H2 from the O2 in water than you can ever get back by recombining (burning)them. That's not where we get most of our hydrogen from, although it's what most people think. About 95% of the H2 used today is stripped off of natural gas. Guess what? Natural gas is just another fossil fuel.
Cheers,
Dorri
Posted by: If it's got an engine. . . | December 02, 2005 at 09:10 AM