Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to Ah, ok.

re: Ah, ok.
EnergyExpert — (archived)

My interest is see a clearner, safer world beyond oil.

What is yours? Supporting the existing oil industry which is using biofuel hype to increase demand for oil? Or do you actually believe biofuel reduces deamnd for oil despite the study I referenced?

Yes. like all secondary energy sources Hydrogen cost is a function of the cost of energyt o genrate it. This recent University of Hawaii study documents the cost cruves well for sources other then nuclear.

http://www.hnei.hawaii.edu/h2_appendix.pdf

Bottom line, the cost per Kwh drives the cost of hydrogen.

Petro prices on the other hand, like biofuel, don't include the costs of environmental damage and national security.

Also current hydrogen costs reflect an immature technology designed for low volume demand while petro is the result of a mature technology with high demand. As technology for hydrogen production improves its cost will come done, while oil costs will only raise as cheap sources dryup and economic blackmail by producing countries increases.

This site presents a good summary of the cost issue.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/07/doe_raises_hydr.html

Zubrin's hydrogen arguments are nothing more then a variation on the arguments that because th Shuttle is expensive ALL space launch systems will be expensive. Maybe that is how aerospace engineers think, but not those in commercial industries like automotives.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (132 posts)