Does anyone have a copy of the May 2004 Scientific American where there was an article on the Well-to-Wheel cost and impact of various fuel sources? Can you scan that article for me? I think I might swing by the library but just in case I'm sure someone here has a copy. I got it, kept it, and then decided a couple years ago to think my stack. I should never have thrown that one out.
If you are looking for the article called " [FONT="]Questions about a Hydrogen Economy" I can email you a word document containing the text of the article (copyright resticted so I can't post it here). It doesn't have any of the pictures though.[/FONT]
That's probably the article. Specifically, I was looking for the illustration of the different fuel types and how they rank. I'm a graphical learner and SciAm always has such great illustrations.
Tony, The article is available free online at http://www.heartland.org/custom/semod_policybot/pdf/15486.pdf
That was a good read, other than the Exxon ads. The emissions of hydrogen are unacceptably high, despite the 'clean burning' fallacy. It's the whole production that counts, not the 'it's just water' out of the tailpipe. edit: There's a Prius in the article. It's just as efficient as hydrogen, by the way.
Hey, that was it! I love that it's posted but have torn emotions with the "Reprint compliments of ExxonMobile." Whatever. Thanks Megan.
The reason I wanted this article is for a coworker. He's often obstinate and stubborn but will sometimes consider differing points of view when presented external sources. Last week he took his kids to the Chicago Auto Show and came back to tell me that he saw a hydrogen car. This after I allegedly told him that "there will never be hydrogen vehicles." In the first place I would never have said that and secondly he just likes to try to get me worked up. We actually have a good relationship with cook-outs and things so it's not like he does this because he hates me. It's one of those friendships where we pick on each other because we know we can take it and there's no hard feelings. So I was trying to reiterate that with the vast majority of US energy generated through the burning of fossil fuels and the amount of energy used to split water into hydrogen, further complicated by the losses incurred every time a machine is used and energy is transferred, hydrogen is not a viable alternative in terms of environmental impact. I went on to say that the claim of "only water from the tailpipe" is used to take the consumer's mind off the amount of stuff pumped into the atmosphere by the coal plant that is indirectly powering the car. So I'm amassing information from places I know he trusts. Though he's more of a Popular Science reader, I know he also enjoys the ocasional SciAm.
I've had a few co-workers like that. I find if I repeatedly beat on them, they eventually come around to my viewpoint There are clear advantages to being the 800 lb gorilla
Being more the cheeky monkey type, brawn's not really an option for me. There are advantages to that, too. I'm going to be bold and say the hydrogen economy is a farce.
Hmm, Not sure I trust that diagram on page 8. I would think a Hybrid Gasoline car would be down around 2/3's of a Diesel IC car, at least based on Jetta versus Prius city mileage. Where most fuel is burned - in the metro area (aka EPA City mileage). They also quoted the gasoline engine at 15 percent efficient in the text, when its not, its the car system propulsion with a gasoline engine that is 15 percent efficient. I say propulsion to excluded the losses due to brakes. The partial power application of the Otto engine in cars results in only 15% efficiency out of an engine that would otherwise be closer to 25 % efficient. Its the use of these engines in cars that is the problem, and its the problem that Hybridization addresses. Now in the Prius your using a engine which has its best efficiency somewhat higher even. 35% ? And then your turning it off when you do not need it.
