November 15, 2004 |
Make no mistake about it, the visions being mapped out for a hydrogen
economy on both sides of the Atlantic provide an excuse for the revival of
nuclear and give environmental legitimacy to fossil fuels."
- Lyn Harrison, RE Insider
If something sounds too good to be true, the chances are that vision has lost
touch with reality. Fantastic claims are being made for hydrogen. According to
the EU?s high level working group on the subject, hydrogen can "effectively
de-carbonize fossil-based energy carriers" through the use of technologies
that "capture and retain damaging emissions" thus allowing
"fossil hydrogen to be used on a large scale with limited greenhouse gas
emissions." Specific to wind power, hydrogen will "open access"
to the transport fuel market. It will also provide a means for "load
levelling," thereby increasing the technical potential for high levels of
wind power on electricity systems. Bunkum. All of it.
Now for some facts. Hydrogen can no more "de-carbonize" fossil fuels
than electricity can. Producing hydrogen from hydrocarbons results in carbon
emissions. If viable techniques should be found for capturing and retaining
emissions, then electricity, not hydrogen, will remain the superior energy
carrier, both economically and environmentally. For transport, hydrogen might
have overall clean air advantages in spark ignition engines were it not for the
matter of finding a practical solution to compressing and transporting the gas.
Even the better efficiencies of using fuel cells in vehicles does not make that
problem disappear. On the subject of efficiency, a favorite argument of fuel
cell proponents is that they are "highly efficient." But even if fuel
cells run at the 50% efficiency claimed for them, losses are incurred at the
electrolysis stage of hydrogen production. On a really good day, fuel cell cycle
efficiency cannot better about 40% -- only a slight improvement on coal. Cleaner
and more efficient at the point of use they may be, but not in the overall
cycle.
As to wind, much of this magazine's in-depth analyses of hydrogen myths and
renewables' realities (published May 2003) is devoted to exposing two serious
fallacies. First, even if dedicated back-up for wind power were necessary, which
it is not, it would be daft to use hydrogen to provide it. Second, if the
transport sector were to demand large amounts of hydrogen, this would not, as
claimed, open up a huge new market for wind power -- a point the European Wind
Energy Association makes with great force. There are as yet no economic or
environmental advantages to using hydrogen in either case -- and thus no drivers
to open markets for wind. The economic downside is important. Economic viability
is as much a part of sustainability as the development of clean, safe
technologies and secure supplies. Sustainable energy solutions are those which
do not compromise the well-being of future generations. That, by the way, rules
out nuclear.
So why, with all its drawbacks, and 200 years after the first combustion engine
was fuelled by hydrogen, has it become all the rage? Look no further for an
answer than the enthusiastic embrace extended to it by big oil and the coal and
gas industries. Under increasing pressure to clean up their act, investment in a
bit of hydrogen dabbling is a least-cost way of hedging their options,
especially with cash handouts from taxpayers to ease the pain. It is also a good
ruse for hampering renewables by distracting attention away from investment in
them. For the past several years Windpower Monthly studiously ignored the
hydrogen topic in the belief that common sense would prevail long before any
politician got the bright idea of siphoning money from wind into hydrogen. How
naive we were. President George Bush is bent on doing just that. John Kerry
seemed to have similar ideas.
Freeing the hostage
Make no mistake about it, the visions being mapped out for a hydrogen economy on
both sides of the Atlantic provide an excuse for the revival of nuclear and give
environmental legitimacy to fossil fuels. Falsehoods about wind power?s reliance
on hydrogen are rampant in strategy papers, which lack the environmental
imperative that would reveal the truth -- that renewable energy, not hydrogen,
is the essential fundamental of clean energy supply. The hydrogen campaign is
hugely funded and cleverly managed. The money is coming from fossil fuel. It has
hijacked hydrogen for its own gain, with cynical disregard for the economic and
environmental downsides of elbowing renewables out of the way. To the world at
large, renewables are beginning to look like a poor cousin to glamorous
hydrogen, busy airing its voluptuous abundancies to entrap the foolish.
There is an upside to all this. By and large, environment lobby groups like
Greenpeace, the Climate Action Network and several energy and environment
institutes are rushing forth to free the hydrogen hostage, launching vicious
attacks on big oil, gas and coal in the process. What a grand opportunity that
presents for wind to leap aboard the hydrogen PR vehicle and proclaim the
industry?s credentials -- as the leading zero emissions energy option. In time,
wind energy might even open up some uses for hydrogen.
"Hydrogen Hijacked" was originally published as an editorial in
Windpower Monthly and reprinted on RenewableEnergyAccess.com with
permission from the author.
About the Author...
Lyn Harrison, Editor of Windpower Monthly, is a familiar face at international
wind energy conferences and exhibitions. A British trained journalist with
several years of newspaper and public relations experience, she moved to Denmark
in 1982. She is a co-owner of Windpower Monthly, which was founded in 1985.
Please Note: RenewableEnergyAccess.com and Arizonaenergy.org do not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window.
Copyright © 1999 - 2004 - RenewableEnergyAccess.com
Please visit www.RenewableEnergyAccess.com for great coverage on energy today!!