In his State of the Union speech in January, President Bush proposed $1.2 billion in spending to develop a pollution-free "Freedom Car". It is true that no pollution is emitted from a hydrogen-powered vehicle, but one must consider the entire energy cycle and infrastructure requirements to figure the impact of this proposed vehicle on the environment.
A hydrogen-powered vehicle has a fuel cell on board that takes hydrogen from a pressure tank and combines it with atmospheric oxygen to create electricity to run an electric traction motor. The only exhaust is pure water as vapor or liquid. This design is wonderful for the automakers--they would be freed from the engineering challenge of reducing tailpipe emissions and they would be freed from the onerous task of preparing regulatory paperwork on emissions. The challenges in hydrogen lie in developing a new distribution infrastructure and in creating the hydrogen.
There are methods of converting electricity into hydrogen that could be used in a transportation system. However, there are large conversion losses in converting electricity to hydrogen and it would take an unspecified, but quite large, collection of wind turbines to produce enough electricity to operate our truck and automobile fleet. America could expect to supplant the wind turbines with additional conventional electrical generators: coal and nuclear. In the proposal for the Freedom Car initiative, new funding for conventional electricity (coal, nuclear, and natural gas) is more than $22 million, exceeding the $17 million allocated for renewable electricity. (Note that elsewhere in the energy budget, alternative energy funding is slashed by $86 million.) The administration's real plan is to build a huge number of coal-fired and nuclear power plants to provide the electricity that will be used to produce hydrogen-alternative energy is not on the agenda. It will take a massive number of these new generating plants to overcome the aforementioned conversion losses.
The Freedom Car initiative does nothing to lead us to a sustainable economy. Further, the additional coal-fired plants and the additional carbon dioxide spewed into the atmosphere will contribute to global warming with its expected effects: increased global temperatures, melting ice caps, higher ocean levels, flooding, crop failures, starvation, and extinctions. Leaders have told us to that "sequestration technology" will be used to recover the carbon and somehow process it and pump it into deep wells in the Earth. This process will require even more energy, and it has not been demonstrated that sequestration will work, much less if it can be done in a cost-effective manner.
There are alternatives to the hydrogen proposal. Efficiency requirements for electric appliances and automobiles have already obviated the need for additional power plants and have reduced our demand for imported oil. Hybrid-electric vehicles are still a maturing technology with even better efficiencies to be seen in the future. If we required manufacturers to meet higher fuel economy standards, manufacturers would soon provide a selection of vehicles with vastly better mileage performance.
There are production diesel automobiles with impressive fuel economy-a hybrid with a diesel engine would yield even more mileage performance. The burgeoning biodiesel industry may provide the fuel we need through the gas station infrastructure that we already have in place.
It is lamentable that our leaders feel compelled to promote traditional energy solutions that rely on a traditional and centralized energy distribution system. If we are ever going to achieve a sustainable energy situation, it is going to require federal requirements on automakers to improve efficiency. Further funding for alternative energy will be needed to achieve energy independence in the long term.
http://ohio.sierraclub.org/northeast/hydrogen.htm