 |
|||
Our
Energy Website Is
Our Transportation Energy Future F. David Doty – 12/03, updated 3/06 Most of our NMR and MRI customers are surprised to learn that energy-related R&D has been a small but important component of the research at Doty Scientific from the beginning. Our focus has been primarily on novel concepts and designs for small, efficient microturbines. Recently, we have come to accept that the diesel engine has won, and it is time to bow out gracefully – well, sorta. We have also come to realize how confused, or at least misdirected, much of the rest of futuristic energy research has become over the past seven years, and we would like to offer an unbiased, scientific perspective on renewables and hydrogen. As a physicist, I've been studying these problems for over 30 years, and it has become increasingly clear to me with each passing year that the "Hydrogen Economy" will never materialize and our only viable, long-term option is renewables. Compared to bio-fuels (bio-diesel, bio-gasoline, and ethanol), hydrogen has order-of-magnitude disadvantages in fuel costs, engine costs, and CO2 release that will not be solved in the next five decades. After several years, it's nice to know I am no longer the only "voice crying in the wilderness". The very recent NAS/NAE study represents a major step by a prestigious organization toward admitting that hydrogen will not do us any good for at least 25 years. Also, the former secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewables at DOE, Dr. Joe Romm, has taken an objective look at hydrogen in his very recent book, The Hype about Hydrogen . The administration's focus on hydrogen for the past six years has helped convince most people that we must eliminate C02 emissions. After two years of intense educational efforts by many biofuel advocates (and finally dome clear statements from the administration and DOE agencies), the general public is beginning to understand that it's only CO2 from fossil origins that contributes to global warming - that burning fuels from things we grow (like bio-diesel and mixed-alcohols, both of which are very clean and practical) does nothing to increase the CO2 in our atmosphere over the long run as long as we keep re-planting the crops. Unfortunately, junk science, like that by David Pimentel and Tad Patzek, showing energy balance less than 1 for all biofuels, continues to get published occasionally in semi-respected journals and picked up by the media, always bent to presenting a "balanced" view. The truth is, the energy balance of corn ethanol, one of the least viable biofuels, has increased from about 1.05 to about 1.8 over the past 15 years, and similar progress seems likely over the coming 15 years. Cellulosic bio-ethanol (especially from switchgrass, but also eucalyptus, hemp, poplars, pines, and all types of wood wastes) is steadily becoming more competitive. It promises fossil energy balance exceeding 5, with no depletion (in fact, augmentation) of soil organic material. The
hydrogen lobby (which is led by representatives from dozens of companies
trying to make fuel cells, hydrogen tanks, etc.) has a vested interest
in this debate, and virtually all published material on hydrogen must
be read with that in mind. (And what's my stake in this debate? My
grandchildren.) I present the hydrogen vs biofuels case scientifically in two rather lengthy and technical articles, available for download, Doty_FutureFuels.pdf and Doty_H2Price.pdf . For the less stalwart, an abridged version, Doty_Practical_Energy_Brief.pdf , is a good place to start. It is gratifying to see that since these papers first appeared in March 2003, the scientific quality of the hydrogen discussion has steadily improved. My main points are:
I summarize my recommendations for a more comprehensive approach to global warming mitigation in Doty_CO2_Plan.pdf . Your comments, questions, and relevant data are welcome.
|
|||
