The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Reader Mail

(Page 6 of 10)

Once again the call for hydrogen as a clean fuel rears its head, the latest in the President's State of the Union Address. And once again I raise my voice in a futile effort to put Hydrogen as a fuel in perspective.

Hydrogen, unlike all other fuels we use, does not exist in nature as a separate element. It is combined with other elements, the most plentiful of which is water, good old H2O. In order to use hydrogen as a fuel, it must be separated from its compounds.

This takes energy. Extracting hydrogen from water requires passing electrical current through the water resulting in hydrogen being released at one electrode, and oxygen at the other. Then you compress the hydrogen and chill it so that it can be transported and stored in insulated containers. Then, finally, you release the hydrogen into some sort of device which recombines the hydrogen with another element, usually oxygen. The result is heat, water, and electricity. To move an automobile or other vehicle, you pass the electricity on to an electric motor.

During my checkered past I had the opportunity to work on the Apollo Spacecraft Power System. It used fuel cells which combined hydrogen and oxygen and produced electricity, heat, and water. Consequently, I've had ample opportunity to become acquainted with this particular technology. In addition, I received my B.S.E.E. in the field of power generation, distribution, and usage.

Applying that background to the present situation, I would like to point out that each stage in the production of hydrogen, its transportation, and its conversion back to electricity or as a fuel in an internal combustion engine, involves wasted energy, usually as heat that must be dissipated and is therefore lost. A generous estimate is that only about 20 percent of the original energy is useable at the end of this chain.

And just where does this energy come from? From our present electricity-generating capacity, from coal and natural gas burned in power plants for the most part. The only other sources are sunshine and wind power, which provide approximately 10 percent of our national usage, water power and nuclear power plants.

The one benefit I can see in this scheme is that the pollution inherent in the production of the energy is moved from the automobiles clogging our highways and byways to a central generating plant where it can be more easily controlled.

Having spent my formative years in Washington state where water power production is high, I have seen the convolutions of the environmentalists who object to the immense dams and reservoirs built by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Such construction imperils wildlife, such as salmon, and encourages recreational boating, which pollutes water and the atmosphere. It also, believe me, changes the character of the rivers, such as the Columbia and the Snake so that the original picturesque scenery is lost forever. Better to drill for oil in ANWR where only the caribou will notice.

The reaction is hardly better when it comes to increasing our nuclear power production capabilities. The nuclear power plant south of Capistrano in Orange County, California, pumps sea water through its cooling towers, and guess what? Fish die! And perish the thought that we could build new more efficient fissile-fuel power stations. Global warming, anyone?

topics:
Transportation, Foreign Policy, Trade, Nancy Pelosi, Earmarks, Social Security, Environment, Global Warming, Books, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, NATO, Africa, Communism, Energy, Alaska, Oil