next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
The fuel cell has been promoted for the past few decades as a solution to many of our environmental problems, especially in the transportation sector. Automobile manufacturers have been promoters of fuel cells since the only greenhouse gas they emit is water (the fact that problems such as urban sprawl, congestion, and traffic fatalities will not be solved by the fuel cell are conveniently overlooked). Most fuel cells take hydrogen and generate electricity that can be used to power electric motors. Although hydrogen exists in nature, it is not found in sufficient quantities (that is, it can't be extracted like coal or oil), meaning that hydrogen must be made from other sources, notably: * The 'reformation' of fossil-based fuels such as gasoline or natural gas, extracting the hydrogen. Attractive to many, since a network of service stations already exist in the developed world, allowing hydrogen to be made on location from fossil fuels. * The 'electrolysis' of water, passing a current through water, breaking the hydrogen-oxygen bonds, releasing the hydrogen. Attractive to many, since most of the developed world has access to electricity, allowing hydrogen to be made at an electrical outlet. * Biological processes, under certain conditions, some types of bacteria will produce hydrogen. This has great potential, but it is still too early to judge whether hydrogen yields can meet our demands. Of the two approaches that could be implemented now (i.e., reformation and electrolysis), many fuel cell advocates push for the electrolysis of water, since the electricity used to produce the hydrogen need not come from fossil fuels. This raises the question -- if not from fossil fuels, where will the electricity come from? This is an important question to answer, since the final cost of the hydrogen will depend upon the cost of the fuel used to generate the electricity. In Iceland, geothermal energy is to be used to generate electricity for electrolysis. This makes sense since there are no fuel costs associated with generating the electricity (the geothermal energy is free). Some advocates of wind energy have promoted the use of hydrogen, because wind has zero fuel costs. However, the cost of wind-generated electricity is presently quite high and, more importantly, its intermittent nature can play havoc with the electrolysis equipment. Are there other alternatives? In the 14 March 2003 edition of the Globe and Mail, fuel cell advocate Geoffrey Ballard has a lengthy article explaining why we need to switch over to fuel cells and hydrogen for our transportation system. He recommends using electrolysis with electricity generated by the ACR or the advanced Candu reactor. Larry Hughes, PhD Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3J 2X4, Canada v: 902.494.3950 f: 902.422.7535 e: larry.hughes@dal.ca u: http://www.dal.ca/~lhughes2 -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- SUST-MAR TIP: messages to sust-mar must be plain text format (no HTML) -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects