janelane wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] ] This morning, a California company, PolyFuel, plans to
] ] ] announce that it has achieved a breakthrough in fuel-cell
] ] ] membranes by using an alternative material: a hydrocarbon
] ] ] that it says costs only about half as much per square
] ] ] meter.
]
] This article fails to address the pivotal question it seeks to
] answer; namely, what effect would such a membrane actually
] have on oil imports? If we all switch to fuel cells in the
] next 25 years (after the $4 billion re-fueling infrastructure
] is created, that is), would such widespread use of a
] hydrocarbon membrane be supported by our existing domestic oil
] production?* Also, what amount of energy is required to
] produce the membranes? If the same amount of oil is just
] going to sidestep the transportation sector on its way to the
] electric utilities, the decrease in efficiency between the
] internal combustion engine (60%) and turbine electricity
] production (35%) cycles would actually amount to more oil
] consumption and pollution.* The same applies whether you use
] coal or natural gas; though the supply of coal is arguably
] longer lasting than that of natural gas or oil, both are still
] polluting and still the source of political chess games.
]
] Thus, the problem with the fabled hydrogen economy - the
] feasibility analysis starts to fork faster than you can keep
] up with it.
]
] - - -
]
] *Source: C.E. Thomas, Brian D. James, et. al. “Societal
] Impacts of Fuel Options for Fuel Cell Vehicles.” Hydrogen and
] Its Future as a Transportation Fuel. Copyright 1998 the
] Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc. page 346, Table 8.

There's no question that the reality of shifting to a sustainable energy system (I hate the term hydrogen economy - Duh! Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons too!) will be difficult, messy, and protracted. Change is hard. And there are many obviously resistant institutions that will be disrupted by the change we're talking about. But the idea that it's a pipedream, or that somehow it results in a less efficient or pragmatic system is bullshit. Of course the economics don't work currently. Of course the yields and efficienies aren't there currently. We don't have the economies of scale, the demand curves, or the will to commit and see it through. It's not an apples to apples comparison to compare a sustainable energy platform in its infancy with an unsustainable one that's nearly 150 years old. I find this exercise ridiculous.

Do you think the automobile would've taken off had Ford not used the combustion engine instead of the steam engine? The combustion engine at the time lost in practically every category to the steam engine. It produced less power, was more prone to failure, didn't have a support infrastructure, and was poorly engineered at the time. But it was more practical and easier to operate for an auto owner. 100 years later and look at what we have now? Combustion engines are magnitudes more efficient than they were. They are highly reliable, easy to maintain, have ample support infrastructure, are even interwoven into our culture. The same effect will be had by migrating to a sustainable energy platform in due time. It just requires the will to make that change, and that will needs to be driven by one simplistic but profound fact: it's the right thing to do because it's ultimately sustainable.

The notion that there might be diminishing returns on producing energy to create fuel cell based power devices is ludicrous. You could derive power from numerous sustainable sources: solar, wind, hydro, even nuclear. The whole point is that basing our energy platform on fossil fuels in any way is flawed from the get go. It's completely unsustainable, lends itself to political turmoil, is more inefficient than even current production models of sustainable energy systems, and when true cost accounting is used, is just as or even more expensive than possible sustainable models. The "fallacy" the Luddites like to point out is in the *transition* from one system to another. Sure, that's fraught with waste and inefficiencies and massive infrastructure. But so are a lot of other transitions. Like rail to road. Or telegraph to telephone. Or circuit switched to packet switched. Or wire to wireless. How is it any different?

RE: Membrane Breakthrough for Fuel Cells