|
Transporting:
Absolutely correct. That's usually one of my big arguments against this technology. How did I forget that! So yes, you're correct that the safest method of delivery would be the solar powered on-site electrolysis. BIG problem with this, however:
What do you do on a cloudy day? Or at night? Don't say batteries to store the solar energy - that's what the hydrogen is first off and second if we have backup batteries to convert when the sun's not out, then we have to worry about the enviornmental impact of making and burying enough batteries to do the job (this would be a LOT of batteries)
As for texas oilmen being the spark - -that's exactly why there's so much hubub over researching this idiocy in the first place. As I think I saw mentioned above, methane is a great source for hydrogen. Methane comes from oil wells. It's cheaper to get methane than it is to get oil. The oil barons would like nothing better than a conversion to fuel cell vehicles because they could get even more rich by selling the methane that costs them less to extract in the first place! Best of all, they're already sitting on a potential fortune in methane and they don't have to expend any capital to secure the rights to it since they already HAVE those rights.
The biomass idea seems plausible until you realize that once again you now have to transport the hydrogen, because no one would want a gas station that had a huge compost pile in its back yard.
As for the pressurized-inert-hydrogen. ..well, as you said this is VERY far off. Until we can do this reliably, AND produce the hydrogen without expending any renewable resources (we're talking decades here folks) it's pointless to go ga-ga over these cars.
|