Interesting Article on Hydrogen Hype
Over at The New Atlantis, there's a pretty thorough debunking of the overhyped potential (or lack thereof) of hydrogen as a fuel for motor vehicles.
If only half of the article's claims regarding the costs of hydrogen-powered vehicles are true, it really puts a stake through the heart of this particular vampire of taxpayer dollars, not that it'll die as a result, alas.
Popular Mechanics covered much of the same ground in a cover article on hydrogen recently, so I'm inclined to accept the conclusion that hydrogen is pretty hopeless without some dramatic changes in the production and transportation technologies available.
I'm less sanguine, meanwhile, about the author's conclusion that ethanol/methanol represents the most promising alternative to petroleum. Given that current ethanol mandates and blends are little more than additional subsidies to corn growers (see this chart for a comparison of the costs of ethanol/methanol vs. gasoline for a cross-country trip), I have my doubts about whether they represent a practical alternative. I'm also firmly against additional government mandates in the energy arena. The notion that the feds are more capable than the free market of choosing the best energy technology for the future is utterly laughable, even without considering the tendency for such mandates to end up lining the pockets of those with an interest in them (i.e. - corn producers).
That aside, I think the clear case the author makes against wasting taxpayer money is a worthwhile contribution to the energy policy debate.
If only half of the article's claims regarding the costs of hydrogen-powered vehicles are true, it really puts a stake through the heart of this particular vampire of taxpayer dollars, not that it'll die as a result, alas.
Popular Mechanics covered much of the same ground in a cover article on hydrogen recently, so I'm inclined to accept the conclusion that hydrogen is pretty hopeless without some dramatic changes in the production and transportation technologies available.
I'm less sanguine, meanwhile, about the author's conclusion that ethanol/methanol represents the most promising alternative to petroleum. Given that current ethanol mandates and blends are little more than additional subsidies to corn growers (see this chart for a comparison of the costs of ethanol/methanol vs. gasoline for a cross-country trip), I have my doubts about whether they represent a practical alternative. I'm also firmly against additional government mandates in the energy arena. The notion that the feds are more capable than the free market of choosing the best energy technology for the future is utterly laughable, even without considering the tendency for such mandates to end up lining the pockets of those with an interest in them (i.e. - corn producers).
That aside, I think the clear case the author makes against wasting taxpayer money is a worthwhile contribution to the energy policy debate.