Environment Forum
Global environmental challenges
Even hydrogen cars have a carbon problem
While it might not seem immediately obvious for a quietly purring car that drips water out its tailpipe, even hydrogen-powered vehicles have a carbon problem.
Given all the electricity needed to get hydrogen compressed and ready for the tank, that juice will need to come from solar, wind or (whisper it) nuclear power to get the fuel cells under the hood nearer to zero carbon output over the fuel’s ”life-cycle.” According to a Volkswagen manager developing the technology, the current mix of power generated on the U.S. grid is still too dirty.
The efficiency of the fuel cell is what makes these prototypes greener than the average gas gazzler, but then there’s also the “chicken and egg” problem of fuel distribution to consider. John Tillman, VW’s program manager for U.S. advanced powertrain research, said hydrogen refueling stations can cost two to three times as much as a gasoline equivalent to build.
“Government’s going to have to get involved in some ways,” he said ahead of a test drive of a VW Passat Lingyu, which was showcased at last year’s Beijing Olympics. “There won’t be enough fuel (at first) to make it profitable.”
Speaking at the California Fuel Cell Partnership headquarters, just outside Sacramento, Tillman also showed reporters what he called the world’s busiest hydrogen pump — owing to the many car companies involved: Ford, Toyota, Hyundai and Nissan all display signage outside.
And while these erstwhile rivals are not working on specific fuel-cell technology together, the partnership does offer them a chance to ask — and try to answer — tough questions about poultry, and which comes first.
Iceland has a nice system only due to geography. It does not produce enough energy to supply a significant population.
Water does not readily condense into droplets. Have you every spent the night under a cloudy sky? It is warmer with the clouds. They trap the heat.
I believe the carbon from hydrogen is a result of electrolysis. A considerable amount of electricity is needed to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. This most likely comes from a coal fired plant(s). Unless you go the nuclear route for electricity generation carbon will be in there somewhere.
Without coal and other fossil fuels we would get our energy from wood. Now do you want that? Additionally these fuels also have useful byproducts without which our live would really, really suck. Could we acknowledge that we should try to squeeze the most work out of every ounce of carbon based fuels we can while working on an alternative? If we were to severely cut CO2 emissions with no other options many people would die. Most environmental scientists state that if we do not do this people may die. Damned if you do damned if you don’t. I will go with the option of continued use of carbon fuels until a reliable alternative is truly ready. Possibly losing lives is much more appealing than definitely losing lives.