That depends how do you generate the hydrogen. Today, hydrogen is created using natural gas. Hydrogen from electrolysis from solar or wind still generates the CO2 from building, and maintaining the system. Fuel cells are still expensive, not terribly efficient, and require high internal temperatures. In addition, fuel cells are not good at responding to load changes. Turn off the electric stove, and you over voltage your HDTV. There is no good way to store hydrogen, and no infrastructure for delivery. How do you propose we change the world over to hydrogen?
I did. Here is what you missed from an earlier post: When did we achieve the labor input that was used to build weapons of mass destruction for the general welfare?
It is referred to as micro-generation, as I've previously mentioned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microgeneration Already being done in places like Japan I believe, no need for a fuel cell and probably makes the process less efficient than using the natural gas directly. - - - Updated - - - Not as long as the fuel for the fuel cell is natural gas. Bring on the fracking!!! Woo Hoo!!
It has been done for decades in places like Sea World, and it called co-generation. Why would it be less efficient than using natural gas directly?
I don't know much about hydrogen fuel cells either but seems to me whatever we do for the long term we should have a goal of creating all the necessary power on the property, and where we can, not use fossil fuels... - - - Updated - - - One step at a time...a local area...then expand...then people get excited if there are success stories...
Actually, there is a huge quantity of natural gas (methane hydrate) just off the coast just about everywhere. It is renewed by dying sea life. If the ocean temps get high enough, no matter the cause, this methane starts to melt. If it melts fast enough, there is a positive feedback. Temps increase, deeper methane hydrates thaw, increasing GHG, causing temps to rise. This has happened at least one in the past, resulting in a 5F global temp rise (in addition to the 5F the Siberian super volcanoes caused), 95% of all life died. Using up the easiest to reach hydrates will increase the temp that the oceans need to reach for thermal run away.
I remember when gasoline sold for less than 20 cents per gallon for premium grade gasoline in the mid-1960's and we often reach over 20-times that cost today. Yes, it has been a slow process of increasing prices to 20-times what they were 50 years ago so time does matter. If gasoline prices increase at the same rate in 2064 the price of the same gasoline will be $80/gallon and that doesn't even take into account that the supply is not expected to keep up with world demand. Of course an increase in the price of gasoline merely makes alternatives fuels more attractive. We could operated all of our internal combustion engines on liquified natural gas today without any real change to the technology and we have lots of natural gas. They will operate on methonal although I don't advocate "burning food" as a viable source of portable energy. As I've also noted assuming we can achieve electrical production with nuclear fusion that produces huge amounts of inexpensive energy we can also convert to the burning of compressed hydrogen in our internal combustion engines. The only by-product of burning hydrogen is water. Of course freeing hydrogen from water is a very wasteful use of electrical power so electric cars make a lot more sense for short distance communting vehicles. The real point is that while we certainly need energy we're not dependent upon any single source of energy. We adapt based upon the cost effectiveness of the energy available at the time and the changes in the costs of energy are really rather slow as noted. Gasoline isn't going to jump to $10/gal over night and may take a decade or more to reach that cost. We will adapt to those price changes eventually changing to other forms of portable energy which is all that gasoline really is.
I believe getting AnCappers to their fusion powered, off the shelf, light saber kits sooner rather than later, may accomplish some of what you seek.
While methane in the atmoshere is a greenhouse gas so are the two byproducts of burning it (i.e.predominately water vapor and CO2) so it really isn't much of a game changer to burn methane. We're still releasing the CO2 that was absorbed millions of years ago in a timespan that is shorter than what is required for the plantlife to reabsorb it and that causes global warming. Water vapor is the largest single greenhouse gas but fortunately it results in rain which removes it from the atmosphere. CO2 in the atmosphere needs to be absorbed by plants which is why deforestation is responsible for much of the increase in the atmospheric CO2 levels.
If the ocean temps get high enough, no matter the cause, this methane starts to melt. If it melts fast enough, there is a positive feedback. Temps increase, deeper methane hydrates thaw, increasing GHG, causing temps to rise. This has happened at least one in the past, resulting in a 5F global temp rise (in addition to the 5F the Siberian super volcanoes caused), 95% of all life died. We need to remove methane hydrates, or they will remove us.... Doesn't require an overly simplified, politically biased climate model, just a look back in history to past extinction events.
I agree, use the natural gas directly. But there aren't many TVs that run on natural gas, so having some electricity around the house does come in handy.
Good goal. Let us know how you plan on going about it, because while I can envision a scheme where we don't use much in the way of fossil fuels, there will always be those circumstances where you must have power generation, right there, right now, in that amount, that make it difficult to rely on more intermittent power sources like renewables. Waiting around for the wind to blow to power up the draw works on a drill rig for example, it certainly would be possible to only use the rig when there is the power to run it, but the rest of time folks are just sitting around being bored, and tool pushers really don't like that, plus it makes the hole costs skyrocket. But it is possible, just not practical.
I agree that deforestation is responsible for a lot of carbon remaining in the atmosphere. But when you consider that methane is CH4 you only release one atom of hydrogen for every 4 atoms of carbon being burnt...and that ain'ttoo bad when compared to other forms of fossil fuels.
Certainly the type of fuel we use can make a difference but it all depends upon how much energy the fuel creates. For example we can run internal combustion engines on alcohol (methonal) that burns "cleaner" than gasoline per gallon but to achieve the same amount of energy we have burn more alcohol than gasoline. So we save on C02 emissions per gallon but burn more gallons to obtain the same amount of energy.
