Re: [Biofuel] [Biofuels] Hydrogen or Biofuels?
MH, When I read things that Amory Lovins say about energy savings in residential and tertiary buildings, he normally make a lot of sense, but on hydrogen and fuel cells efficiency he is way out. In best case a hydrogen/fuel cell vehicle have the same efficiency as a gasoline, but will in most cases have a lower efficiency. This if you start from energy source. EVs or even biodiesel hybrids beat the hydrogen/fuel cell with a large margin. Hakan At 12:55 AM 10/14/2004, you wrote: Hydrogen or Biofuels? September / October 2004 By Amory Lovins and David Morris Utne magazine http://www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=utnestory.id=11334 Two experts go head-to-head on the future of energy In our January-February 2004 issue, we reprinted from Alternet an essay by local-economy advocate David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, in which he takes aim at the advocates of a hydrogen-based economy, asserting, among other things, that because large energy interests are poised to dominate the process of generating hydrogen from substances like gas, oil, and coal, the push to hydrogen will actually be a setback for renewable energy from wind power, biomass, and other sources. Energy analyst Amory B. Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado, and a prominent advocate of hydrogen fuel cell technology, responds. FROM AMORY LOVINS In voicing skepticism about the role of hydrogen in our energy future, my valued friend David Morris makes several points: He is understandably frustrated that hydrogen will initially be made mainly from natural gas, as 96 percent of U.S. hydrogen is now. But he wrongly thinks this will waste energy and increase carbon dioxide emissions. Because fuel cells are two to three times more efficient than gasoline engines, CO2 per mile will actually drop by 40 to 67 percent compared with today's gasoline cars -- and much more with efficient car designs. He's irritated that nuclear advocates claim they'll be the hydrogen producers. But they won't be -- their option costs far too much. He's worried that hydrogen might come from coal. This is a real possibility later, but by then we will have good ways to keep the carbon out of the air. Because General Motors likes fuel cells, he assumes that car and oil companies are preparing for an oil-based hydrogen future. Generally, they're not. He thinks hydrogen will be too costly to distribute. Wrong -- the Swiss study he cites [which claimed that the compacting of this very light and diffuse element for storage and transport is too costly and energy-intensive] considered only the clearly uneconomic options and ignored hydrogen's advantage of more efficient use. He thinks a hydrogen transition will need hundreds of billions of dollars of new infrastructure. This is a vast overestimate. He doesn't recognize hydrogen's important potential to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy. Many environmentalists suspect the Bush administration's enthusiasm for hydrogen serves mainly to distract attention from the short-term energy steps they're unwilling to take. It's impossible to tell from the outside whether that's true or not, but if it is, this self-inflicted wound is not a reason to reject a sound hydrogen transition as a complementary part of a broader energy strategy starting with aggressive efficiency, renewable energy, and distributed resources. Many other good and usually well-informed people have written similar critiques of hydrogen. A well-documented response, Twenty Hydrogen Myths, is free at http://www.rmi.org FROM DAVID MORRIS My esteemed colleague Amory Lovins and I agree and disagree. We both focus on the transportation sector. We both favor a dramatic improvement in vehicle efficiency and the replacement of gasoline with a domestically produced, environmentally benign fuel. We disagree on how to achieve these objectives. Amory advocates fuel cell vehicles that run on hydrogen. I propose hybrid electric vehicles fueled by electricity and biofuels like ethanol. I believe my strategy is far cheaper and far quicker to implement than Amory's. Hybrid vehicles, which use electric motors as well as an engine for power, are commercially available. They already achieve fuel efficiencies as great as those promised by fuel cell cars. With modest modifications, hybrids can be made to plug into the electric grid to charge their batteries. That allows electricity to become their primary fuel and reduces by some 85 percent the amount of fuel needed by the engine. In turn, this allows us to think of biofuels like ethanol as replacements for gasoline rather than, as now, simply additives to it. Unlike hydrogen, ethanol is already widely available. Ethanol is half the price of hydrogen today and may have a still lower price a decade from now. Cars that operate on either ethanol or
Re: [Biofuel] [Biofuels] Hydrogen or Biofuels?
Hakan, I'm not well versed on either of these gentlemen but find them interesting notably RMI's HyperCar. Has either of them described how efficiency and renewable energy will replace our current fossil fuel and nuclear energy demands? Besides, an alternative I enjoy, bicycling. MH, When I read things that Amory Lovins say about energy savings in residential and tertiary buildings, he normally make a lot of sense, but on hydrogen and fuel cells efficiency he is way out. In best case a hydrogen/fuel cell vehicle have the same efficiency as a gasoline, but will in most cases have a lower efficiency. This if you start from energy source. EVs or even biodiesel hybrids beat the hydrogen/fuel cell with a large margin. Hakan Hydrogen or Biofuels? September / October 2004 By Amory Lovins and David Morris Utne magazine http://www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=utnestory.id=11334 Two experts go head-to-head on the future of energy In our January-February 2004 issue, we reprinted from Alternet an essay by local-economy advocate David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, in which he takes aim at the advocates of a hydrogen-based economy, asserting, among other things, that because large energy interests are poised to dominate the process of generating hydrogen from substances like gas, oil, and coal, the push to hydrogen will actually be a setback for renewable energy from wind power, biomass, and other sources. Energy analyst Amory B. Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado, and a prominent advocate of hydrogen fuel cell technology, responds. FROM AMORY LOVINS In voicing skepticism about the role of hydrogen in our energy future, my valued friend David Morris makes several points: He is understandably frustrated that hydrogen will initially be made mainly from natural gas, as 96 percent of U.S. hydrogen is now. But he wrongly thinks this will waste energy and increase carbon dioxide emissions. Because fuel cells are two to three times more efficient than gasoline engines, CO2 per mile will actually drop by 40 to 67 percent compared with today's gasoline cars -- and much more with efficient car designs. He's irritated that nuclear advocates claim they'll be the hydrogen producers. But they won't be -- their option costs far too much. He's worried that hydrogen might come from coal. This is a real possibility later, but by then we will have good ways to keep the carbon out of the air. Because General Motors likes fuel cells, he assumes that car and oil companies are preparing for an oil-based hydrogen future. Generally, they're not. He thinks hydrogen will be too costly to distribute. Wrong -- the Swiss study he cites [which claimed that the compacting of this very light and diffuse element for storage and transport is too costly and energy-intensive] considered only the clearly uneconomic options and ignored hydrogen's advantage of more efficient use. He thinks a hydrogen transition will need hundreds of billions of dollars of new infrastructure. This is a vast overestimate. He doesn't recognize hydrogen's important potential to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy. Many environmentalists suspect the Bush administration's enthusiasm for hydrogen serves mainly to distract attention from the short-term energy steps they're unwilling to take. It's impossible to tell from the outside whether that's true or not, but if it is, this self-inflicted wound is not a reason to reject a sound hydrogen transition as a complementary part of a broader energy strategy starting with aggressive efficiency, renewable energy, and distributed resources. Many other good and usually well-informed people have written similar critiques of hydrogen. A well-documented response, Twenty Hydrogen Myths, is free at http://www.rmi.org FROM DAVID MORRIS My esteemed colleague Amory Lovins and I agree and disagree. We both focus on the transportation sector. We both favor a dramatic improvement in vehicle efficiency and the replacement of gasoline with a domestically produced, environmentally benign fuel. We disagree on how to achieve these objectives. Amory advocates fuel cell vehicles that run on hydrogen. I propose hybrid electric vehicles fueled by electricity and biofuels like ethanol. I believe my strategy is far cheaper and far quicker to implement than Amory's. Hybrid vehicles, which use electric motors as well as an engine for power, are commercially available. They already achieve fuel efficiencies as great as those promised by fuel cell cars. With modest modifications, hybrids can be made to plug into the electric grid to charge their batteries. That allows electricity to
Re: [Biofuel] [Biofuels] Hydrogen or Biofuels?
Good one! Jonathan MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hydrogen or Biofuels? September / October 2004 By Amory Lovins and David Morris Utne magazine http://www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=utnestory.id=11334 Two experts go head-to-head on the future of energy In our January-February 2004 issue, we reprinted from Alternet an essay by local-economy advocate David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, in which he takes aim at the advocates of a hydrogen-based economy, asserting, among other things, that because large energy interests are poised to dominate the process of generating hydrogen from substances like gas, oil, and coal, the push to hydrogen will actually be a setback for renewable energy from wind power, biomass, and other sources. Energy analyst Amory B. Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado, and a prominent advocate of hydrogen fuel cell technology, responds. FROM AMORY LOVINS In voicing skepticism about the role of hydrogen in our energy future, my valued friend David Morris makes several points: He is understandably frustrated that hydrogen will initially be made mainly from natural gas, as 96 percent of U.S. hydrogen is now. But he wrongly thinks this will waste energy and increase carbon dioxide emissions. Because fuel cells are two to three times more efficient than gasoline engines, CO2 per mile will actually drop by 40 to 67 percent compared with today's gasoline cars -- and much more with efficient car designs. He's irritated that nuclear advocates claim they'll be the hydrogen producers. But they won't be -- their option costs far too much. He's worried that hydrogen might come from coal. This is a real possibility later, but by then we will have good ways to keep the carbon out of the air. Because General Motors likes fuel cells, he assumes that car and oil companies are preparing for an oil-based hydrogen future. Generally, they're not. He thinks hydrogen will be too costly to distribute. Wrong -- the Swiss study he cites [which claimed that the compacting of this very light and diffuse element for storage and transport is too costly and energy-intensive] considered only the clearly uneconomic options and ignored hydrogen's advantage of more efficient use. He thinks a hydrogen transition will need hundreds of billions of dollars of new infrastructure. This is a vast overestimate. He doesn't recognize hydrogen's important potential to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy. Many environmentalists suspect the Bush administration's enthusiasm for hydrogen serves mainly to distract attention from the short-term energy steps they're unwilling to take. It's impossible to tell from the outside whether that's true or not, but if it is, this self-inflicted wound is not a reason to reject a sound hydrogen transition as a complementary part of a broader energy strategy starting with aggressive efficiency, renewable energy, and distributed resources. Many other good and usually well-informed people have written similar critiques of hydrogen. A well-documented response, Twenty Hydrogen Myths, is free at http://www.rmi.org FROM DAVID MORRIS My esteemed colleague Amory Lovins and I agree and disagree. We both focus on the transportation sector. We both favor a dramatic improvement in vehicle efficiency and the replacement of gasoline with a domestically produced, environmentally benign fuel. We disagree on how to achieve these objectives. Amory advocates fuel cell vehicles that run on hydrogen. I propose hybrid electric vehicles fueled by electricity and biofuels like ethanol. I believe my strategy is far cheaper and far quicker to implement than Amory's. Hybrid vehicles, which use electric motors as well as an engine for power, are commercially available. They already achieve fuel efficiencies as great as those promised by fuel cell cars. With modest modifications, hybrids can be made to plug into the electric grid to charge their batteries. That allows electricity to become their primary fuel and reduces by some 85 percent the amount of fuel needed by the engine. In turn, this allows us to think of biofuels like ethanol as replacements for gasoline rather than, as now, simply additives to it. Unlike hydrogen, ethanol is already widely available. Ethanol is half the price of hydrogen today and may have a still lower price a decade from now. Cars that operate on either ethanol or gasoline -- or any combination of the two -- can be made at an additional cost of $150 per vehicle. More than 4 million are on the road right now. The most optimistic estimate of the additional cost for a fuel cell car in 2015 is $10,000; most estimates are considerably higher. Ethanol refueling stations cost 90 percent less than hydrogen refueling stations. Hydrogen advocates should be applauded for proposing a solution commensurate with the problem. But a better strategy exists. Much more detail can be found in my recent
Re: [Biofuel] [Biofuels] Hydrogen or Biofuels?
Morris is right, Lovins has soot in his eyes. Steve Spence http://www.green-trust.org - Original Message - From: Jonathan Dunlap [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 7:09 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] [Biofuels] Hydrogen or Biofuels? Good one! Jonathan MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hydrogen or Biofuels? September / October 2004 By Amory Lovins and David Morris Utne magazine http://www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=utnestory.id=11334 Two experts go head-to-head on the future of energy In our January-February 2004 issue, we reprinted from Alternet an essay by local-economy advocate David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, in which he takes aim at the advocates of a hydrogen-based economy, asserting, among other things, that because large energy interests are poised to dominate the process of generating hydrogen from substances like gas, oil, and coal, the push to hydrogen will actually be a setback for renewable energy from wind power, biomass, and other sources. Energy analyst Amory B. Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado, and a prominent advocate of hydrogen fuel cell technology, responds. FROM AMORY LOVINS In voicing skepticism about the role of hydrogen in our energy future, my valued friend David Morris makes several points: He is understandably frustrated that hydrogen will initially be made mainly from natural gas, as 96 percent of U.S. hydrogen is now. But he wrongly thinks this will waste energy and increase carbon dioxide emissions. Because fuel cells are two to three times more efficient than gasoline engines, CO2 per mile will actually drop by 40 to 67 percent compared with today's gasoline cars -- and much more with efficient car designs. He's irritated that nuclear advocates claim they'll be the hydrogen producers. But they won't be -- their option costs far too much. He's worried that hydrogen might come from coal. This is a real possibility later, but by then we will have good ways to keep the carbon out of the air. Because General Motors likes fuel cells, he assumes that car and oil companies are preparing for an oil-based hydrogen future. Generally, they're not. He thinks hydrogen will be too costly to distribute. Wrong -- the Swiss study he cites [which claimed that the compacting of this very light and diffuse element for storage and transport is too costly and energy-intensive] considered only the clearly uneconomic options and ignored hydrogen's advantage of more efficient use. He thinks a hydrogen transition will need hundreds of billions of dollars of new infrastructure. This is a vast overestimate. He doesn't recognize hydrogen's important potential to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy. Many environmentalists suspect the Bush administration's enthusiasm for hydrogen serves mainly to distract attention from the short-term energy steps they're unwilling to take. It's impossible to tell from the outside whether that's true or not, but if it is, this self-inflicted wound is not a reason to reject a sound hydrogen transition as a complementary part of a broader energy strategy starting with aggressive efficiency, renewable energy, and distributed resources. Many other good and usually well-informed people have written similar critiques of hydrogen. A well-documented response, Twenty Hydrogen Myths, is free at http://www.rmi.org FROM DAVID MORRIS My esteemed colleague Amory Lovins and I agree and disagree. We both focus on the transportation sector. We both favor a dramatic improvement in vehicle efficiency and the replacement of gasoline with a domestically produced, environmentally benign fuel. We disagree on how to achieve these objectives. Amory advocates fuel cell vehicles that run on hydrogen. I propose hybrid electric vehicles fueled by electricity and biofuels like ethanol. I believe my strategy is far cheaper and far quicker to implement than Amory's. Hybrid vehicles, which use electric motors as well as an engine for power, are commercially available. They already achieve fuel efficiencies as great as those promised by fuel cell cars. With modest modifications, hybrids can be made to plug into the electric grid to charge their batteries. That allows electricity to become their primary fuel and reduces by some 85 percent the amount of fuel needed by the engine. In turn, this allows us to think of biofuels like ethanol as replacements for gasoline rather than, as now, simply additives to it. Unlike hydrogen, ethanol is already widely available. Ethanol is half the price of hydrogen today and may have a still lower price a decade from now. Cars that operate on either ethanol or gasoline -- or any combination of the two -- can be made at an additional cost of $150 per vehicle. More than 4 million are on the road right now. The most optimistic
Re: [Biofuel] [Biofuels] Hydrogen or Biofuels?
My two cents: From a practical point of view, I would have to agree wiht Mr. David Morris - that Hybrid Cars with traditional alternative fuel are the wave of the future. The market will dictate the pace and if you look at what Toyota is doing with their hybrid cars then one does not have to look much further. For the past twenty years in the energy industry, I had the opportunity to work with gasoline, diesel, natural gas, fuel cells, electric vehicles, ethanol, hybrid, hydrogen and other variations. It appears hybrid cars with fuel cells with access to an existing distribution fueling system is the here and now. Natural gas vehicles could work but lack the extensive distribution system for 100% market penetration. That is why biodiesel or biofuels have such a great opportunity. They can take advantage of an existing distribution system. My two cents. --- MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hydrogen or Biofuels? September / October 2004 By Amory Lovins and David Morris Utne magazine http://www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=utnestory.id=11334 Two experts go head-to-head on the future of energy In our January-February 2004 issue, we reprinted from Alternet an essay by local-economy advocate David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, in which he takes aim at the advocates of a hydrogen-based economy, asserting, among other things, that because large energy interests are poised to dominate the process of generating hydrogen from substances like gas, oil, and coal, the push to hydrogen will actually be a setback for renewable energy from wind power, biomass, and other sources. Energy analyst Amory B. Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado, and a prominent advocate of hydrogen fuel cell technology, responds. FROM AMORY LOVINS In voicing skepticism about the role of hydrogen in our energy future, my valued friend David Morris makes several points: He is understandably frustrated that hydrogen will initially be made mainly from natural gas, as 96 percent of U.S. hydrogen is now. But he wrongly thinks this will waste energy and increase carbon dioxide emissions. Because fuel cells are two to three times more efficient than gasoline engines, CO2 per mile will actually drop by 40 to 67 percent compared with today's gasoline cars -- and much more with efficient car designs. He's irritated that nuclear advocates claim they'll be the hydrogen producers. But they won't be -- their option costs far too much. He's worried that hydrogen might come from coal. This is a real possibility later, but by then we will have good ways to keep the carbon out of the air. Because General Motors likes fuel cells, he assumes that car and oil companies are preparing for an oil-based hydrogen future. Generally, they're not. He thinks hydrogen will be too costly to distribute. Wrong -- the Swiss study he cites [which claimed that the compacting of this very light and diffuse element for storage and transport is too costly and energy-intensive] considered only the clearly uneconomic options and ignored hydrogen's advantage of more efficient use. He thinks a hydrogen transition will need hundreds of billions of dollars of new infrastructure. This is a vast overestimate. He doesn't recognize hydrogen's important potential to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy. Many environmentalists suspect the Bush administration's enthusiasm for hydrogen serves mainly to distract attention from the short-term energy steps they're unwilling to take. It's impossible to tell from the outside whether that's true or not, but if it is, this self-inflicted wound is not a reason to reject a sound hydrogen transition as a complementary part of a broader energy strategy starting with aggressive efficiency, renewable energy, and distributed resources. Many other good and usually well-informed people have written similar critiques of hydrogen. A well-documented response, Twenty Hydrogen Myths, is free at http://www.rmi.org FROM DAVID MORRIS My esteemed colleague Amory Lovins and I agree and disagree. We both focus on the transportation sector. We both favor a dramatic improvement in vehicle efficiency and the replacement of gasoline with a domestically produced, environmentally benign fuel. We disagree on how to achieve these objectives. Amory advocates fuel cell vehicles that run on hydrogen. I propose hybrid electric vehicles fueled by electricity and biofuels like ethanol. I believe my strategy is far cheaper and far quicker to implement than Amory's. Hybrid vehicles, which use electric motors as well as an engine for power, are commercially available. They already achieve fuel efficiencies as great as those promised by fuel cell cars. With modest
Re: [Biofuel] [Biofuels] Hydrogen or Biofuels?
Not to start a fight or anything other than to add my own $0.02 ( that is US in fact, LOL ), but I see biofuels as a storage / transport medium for hydrogen. They are easier to make, transport ( using existing technology ), and other wise handle. A few examples: Methanol CH3OH 4 Hydrogen for every Carbon ( included because it was made from biomass before it was ever made from a petroleum product aka coal or Natural Gas ) Ethanol C2H5OH 3 Hydrogen for every Carbon BioDiesel ( varies depending on the Veggie oil and the alcohol used ). Producer Gas ( varies depending on feed stock and process used ), made from Biomass, and unfortunately coal, not normally used. Might become a viable way to tap oil shale for Hydrocarbon feed stock ( I have heard that Oil Shale is lower in sulfur than most coal and crude oil stocks, can anyone else verify that? ). They all can be transported from one place to another with current transporting capabilities, with minor modifications. Pro/Cons Methanol: Is the simplest molecule and to my knowledge has the highest Hydrogen to carbon ratio of any fuel short of H2 it's self.Unfortunately at this time it's more difficult to produce from biomass, than from a petroleum product. More toxic than the many others. Ethanol: Next simplest molecule and one of the easiest to produce, but, regulated and heavily taxed, unless it is denatured - *** Using petroleum products ***. BioDiesel: More complex molecule, higher heating/BTU value for a given weight, can for the most part be made at home, but, to some extent still in its infancy stage. Producer Gas: Within current technological capabilities, but, it needs to be redeveloped, has a lot of potential to put out higher NOX. Final Thoughts: If research money was spent on developing these sources of Hydrogen storage and transportation capacities, then less money would be needed overall, and, the environment would be better off, because you don't end up having to Develop new infrastructure.There are already fuel cells that can handle Low Sulfur Diesel, but, handling what sulfur that is in the LSD, comes at a price of lower efficiency.Have any experiments been done on fuel cells ( that can handle LSD ) with BioDiesel, I doubt it, but I would like to see it done and find out what the results are. Greg H. - Original Message - From: MH [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 16:55 Subject: [Biofuel] [Biofuels] Hydrogen or Biofuels? Hydrogen or Biofuels? September / October 2004 By Amory Lovins and David Morris Utne magazine http://www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=utnestory.id=11334 Two experts go head-to-head on the future of energy In our January-February 2004 issue, we reprinted from Alternet an essay by local-economy advocate David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, in which he takes aim at the advocates of a hydrogen-based economy, asserting, among other things, that because large energy interests are poised to dominate the process of generating hydrogen from substances like gas, oil, and coal, the push to hydrogen will actually be a setback for renewable energy from wind power, biomass, and other sources. Energy analyst Amory B. Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado, and a prominent advocate of hydrogen fuel cell technology, responds. FROM AMORY LOVINS In voicing skepticism about the role of hydrogen in our energy future, my valued friend David Morris makes several points: He is understandably frustrated that hydrogen will initially be made mainly from natural gas, as 96 percent of U.S. hydrogen is now. But he wrongly thinks this will waste energy and increase carbon dioxide emissions. Because fuel cells are two to three times more efficient than gasoline engines, CO2 per mile will actually drop by 40 to 67 percent compared with today's gasoline cars -- and much more with efficient car designs. He's irritated that nuclear advocates claim they'll be the hydrogen producers. But they won't be -- their option costs far too much. He's worried that hydrogen might come from coal. This is a real possibility later, but by then we will have good ways to keep the carbon out of the air. Because General Motors likes fuel cells, he assumes that car and oil companies are preparing for an oil-based hydrogen future. Generally, they're not. He thinks hydrogen will be too costly to distribute. Wrong -- the Swiss study he cites [which claimed that the compacting of this very light and diffuse element for storage and transport is too costly and energy-intensive] considered only the clearly uneconomic options and ignored hydrogen's advantage of more efficient use. He thinks a hydrogen transition will need hundreds of billions of dollars of new infrastructure. This is a vast overestimate. He doesn't recognize
[Biofuel] [Biofuels] Hydrogen or Biofuels?
Hydrogen or Biofuels? September / October 2004 By Amory Lovins and David Morris Utne magazine http://www.utne.com/cgi-bin/udt/im.display.printable?client.id=utnestory.id=11334 Two experts go head-to-head on the future of energy In our January-February 2004 issue, we reprinted from Alternet an essay by local-economy advocate David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, in which he takes aim at the advocates of a hydrogen-based economy, asserting, among other things, that because large energy interests are poised to dominate the process of generating hydrogen from substances like gas, oil, and coal, the push to hydrogen will actually be a setback for renewable energy from wind power, biomass, and other sources. Energy analyst Amory B. Lovins, CEO of the Rocky Mountain Institute in Snowmass, Colorado, and a prominent advocate of hydrogen fuel cell technology, responds. FROM AMORY LOVINS In voicing skepticism about the role of hydrogen in our energy future, my valued friend David Morris makes several points: He is understandably frustrated that hydrogen will initially be made mainly from natural gas, as 96 percent of U.S. hydrogen is now. But he wrongly thinks this will waste energy and increase carbon dioxide emissions. Because fuel cells are two to three times more efficient than gasoline engines, CO2 per mile will actually drop by 40 to 67 percent compared with today's gasoline cars -- and much more with efficient car designs. He's irritated that nuclear advocates claim they'll be the hydrogen producers. But they won't be -- their option costs far too much. He's worried that hydrogen might come from coal. This is a real possibility later, but by then we will have good ways to keep the carbon out of the air. Because General Motors likes fuel cells, he assumes that car and oil companies are preparing for an oil-based hydrogen future. Generally, they're not. He thinks hydrogen will be too costly to distribute. Wrong -- the Swiss study he cites [which claimed that the compacting of this very light and diffuse element for storage and transport is too costly and energy-intensive] considered only the clearly uneconomic options and ignored hydrogen's advantage of more efficient use. He thinks a hydrogen transition will need hundreds of billions of dollars of new infrastructure. This is a vast overestimate. He doesn't recognize hydrogen's important potential to accelerate the adoption of renewable energy. Many environmentalists suspect the Bush administration's enthusiasm for hydrogen serves mainly to distract attention from the short-term energy steps they're unwilling to take. It's impossible to tell from the outside whether that's true or not, but if it is, this self-inflicted wound is not a reason to reject a sound hydrogen transition as a complementary part of a broader energy strategy starting with aggressive efficiency, renewable energy, and distributed resources. Many other good and usually well-informed people have written similar critiques of hydrogen. A well-documented response, Twenty Hydrogen Myths, is free at http://www.rmi.org FROM DAVID MORRIS My esteemed colleague Amory Lovins and I agree and disagree. We both focus on the transportation sector. We both favor a dramatic improvement in vehicle efficiency and the replacement of gasoline with a domestically produced, environmentally benign fuel. We disagree on how to achieve these objectives. Amory advocates fuel cell vehicles that run on hydrogen. I propose hybrid electric vehicles fueled by electricity and biofuels like ethanol. I believe my strategy is far cheaper and far quicker to implement than Amory's. Hybrid vehicles, which use electric motors as well as an engine for power, are commercially available. They already achieve fuel efficiencies as great as those promised by fuel cell cars. With modest modifications, hybrids can be made to plug into the electric grid to charge their batteries. That allows electricity to become their primary fuel and reduces by some 85 percent the amount of fuel needed by the engine. In turn, this allows us to think of biofuels like ethanol as replacements for gasoline rather than, as now, simply additives to it. Unlike hydrogen, ethanol is already widely available. Ethanol is half the price of hydrogen today and may have a still lower price a decade from now. Cars that operate on either ethanol or gasoline -- or any combination of the two -- can be made at an additional cost of $150 per vehicle. More than 4 million are on the road right now. The most optimistic estimate of the additional cost for a fuel cell car in 2015 is $10,000; most estimates are considerably higher. Ethanol refueling stations cost 90 percent less than hydrogen refueling stations. Hydrogen advocates should be applauded for proposing a solution commensurate with the problem. But a better strategy exists.
