Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 55312
Right now, it takes more energy to produce the H2 than the H2 yields. Burning it or using a fuel cell to make electricity doesn't change the equation. It's clean but it ain't free. Unless you produce it with wind, tidal or solar power we are no farther ahead............ 
Tim |
This is not entirely true and is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for the technology. Hydrogen is the most abundant gas in nature and has many sources. Burning hydrocarbons such as natural gas or coal to produce hydrogen is only one source and yes it is costly. Hydrogen is also a byproduct of some manufacturing processes in certain industries today and could be harnessed as fuel instead of waste. Solar energy and Nuclear energy can also be used to produce the gas. There are also many other viable sources. Basically, no country that had a hydrogen infrastructer for fuel cell cars would need to import hydrogen, especially the U.S. Gm is placing billions of dollars into the program because it is a viable fuel. Only the
oil companies and companies who have dollars invested into hydrid technologies say that hydrogen will not work. Something to keep in mind is that when Totota and GM started serious fuel cell programs, Shell
oil started Shell Hydrogen and began buying up as many hydrogen producing comapnies as possible. Just my .02, I have learned not to trust everything I read in the media about this subject because of a direct connection to the industry.
--Mike