This is according to a study published in the journal of the American Academy of Sciences
Switching to hydrogen vehicles could significantly reduce the US's dependence on oil and the emission of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide - this conclusion is based on a special report published by the National Research Council at the request of Congress. However, competitive production of hydrogen vehicles in the automotive industry will not be so easy. Although the new fuel cell developments and advances in hydrogen production technologies over the past few years have been extremely impressive, many challenges still remain on the way to the desired goal.
Vehicle maintenance costs are high and the US does not yet have the infrastructure to produce and distribute hydrogen to the various consumers. However, these obstacles can be overcome with the help of continuous aid for development and research and firm commitments from the automobile industry and the federal government - concludes the council that wrote the special report.
Light vehicles, such as cars, used sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks, are responsible for forty-four percent of US fuel consumption and over twenty percent of carbon dioxide emissions. Concerns about climate change (such as global warming), oil imports, and recent fluctuations in fuel prices have accelerated the interest. The increasing development of alternative fuels.
In 2003 US President Bush announced a $1.2 billion initiative to encourage the development of hydrogen production technologies and fuel cell vehicles powered by a safe chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen and emitting only water as a final product.
The Council estimates that the maximum number of hydrogen vehicles that will be able to move on the roads in the coming decades, assuming that the scientists will indeed reach the practical technological goals, that consumers will indeed want these vehicles and that the government policy will indeed live up to its commitments to assist in the transition from fuel cells to hydrogen cells, will be about two million. The findings actually present the best possible scenario and not just the predictions for it.
According to the council, it will take many years before hydrogen vehicles will be able to penetrate in significant percentages into fleets of light vehicles, despite the rapid progress of technological developments. The production of hydrogen vehicles will be able to increase significantly starting in 2015. At this point, despite a rapid price drop, their practical cost to consumers will still need a lot of government subsidy.
The maximum practical number of hydrogen vehicles that will be able to move on the road in 2020 is two million - the report states. In 2023 the total cost of cell vehicles, including the cost of hydrogen fuel relative to the lifetime of the vehicle, will be able to become competitive with other typical vehicles. This, the number of hydrogen vehicles on the road could increase steeply to almost 60 million in 2035 and 200 million in 2050.
The council also calculated the economic investment, both public and private, required for a full transition from gasoline vehicles to hydrogen vehicles. This investment includes research and development, deployment of vehicles and construction of appropriate infrastructure. According to the council, government assistance will be required through strong policy initiatives as well as government funding until at least 2023. The government cost will be about fifty-five billion dollars between the years 2008 and 2023. It is expected that the private industries will invest 145 billion dollars during this period. For comparison, the government subsidy for ethanol fuel could grow up to 15 billion dollars a year by 2020.
The transition to hydrogen fuel will not significantly affect oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions until hydrogen vehicles do not constitute a significant percentage of all vehicles on the market. If the hydrogen vehicles will indeed form the majority in the vehicle market, then there will be a considerable reduction in these two indicators, although the overall effect on greenhouse gas emissions will also depend on the production method of the hydrogen fuel. The council compared these reductions with reductions that could be obtained by improving the fuel efficiency of regular vehicles or by replacing bio-fuel. Since these reductions could be implemented more quickly, these two alternatives could lead to a reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions faster than hydrogen fuel, But only after 2040 will hydrogen become more efficient.
The best practical reduction will be obtained if all three alternatives of biofuels, increasing the efficiency of fuel cells and hydrogen vehicles are promoted at the same time, rather than treating them as competing with each other. This inclusive approach, if accompanied by a correct government policy, will be able to reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks to only twenty percent of the level that exists today and will be able to get rid of any need for fuel from an oil source in 2050.
30 תגובות
And now a year and a half after the article, hydrogen cars are being sold by the Honda company.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
Only electric cars are the future
Finding a way to produce electricity without burning fossil fuel will be faster
Loehari:
No. It is not hard to believe that she will strive, but it is impossible to believe that she will succeed, especially that this is an effort that stems from academic circles operating within the framework of academic freedom as well as from bodies with a commercial interest that is contrary to that of the oil companies.
Michael:
Why "Oh really!" ?
Is it hard to believe that an industry that makes trillions will strive to protect itself at all costs?
Loehari:
come on!
I heard that the investment in hydrogen energy is intended to divert the discussion from the electric drive,
This is because the electric vehicles can already move on the roads today and immediately damage the fuel industry, the internal combustion engine industry, the spare parts, the oils, the garages, etc.
Hydrogen vehicles will appear somewhere in the future, in the meantime you can sell oil.
That's why I don't think that investing in hydrogen vehicles is a waste of money but an investment in PR
Loehari:
This is your personal opinion and there are other serious people who have a different personal opinion and are confident enough in their opinion to invest money in trying.
I don't accept the idea of populism because people aren't looking for ways to waste their money, nor are they looking for ways to fail.
To Michael:
I have no problem with testing technologies.
I just wonder why test these technologies as an engine for a car but as facilities for generating electricity and from there transfer it to the car.
That is to do OUTSOURCING for the production of the power for the car.
After all, the whole discussion here is about which power plant should be put inside the car to convert a certain material into movement. I'm just wondering if it wouldn't be better to remove these power plants from the car.
And the fact that people will stand up and say "Isn't X better?" - I think that the usefulness here should be examined with objective tools as much as possible and not with populism (which in my personal opinion is the whole discussion of hydrogen vehicles)
Loehari:
The situation at the moment is that they don't know what is better, so they are checking everything.
In the end, it is likely that one of the technologies will turn out to be superior and will be established while suppressing the others.
Let's say it's technology X
So there will probably be a lot of people who asked questions like "Isn't X better?" Or even emphatically claimed "X is better!" And they will say "I told you so" but of course they won't be right because when they asked or claimed they really didn't know what turned out later and their question was just an unfounded gut feeling.
Of course, all those who claimed "Y is better" sat quietly even though they were no more wrong than those who said "X is better" in the absence of data.
Isn't it better to invest in a rechargeable electric car and outsource its energy source?
In Israel the car will run on carbon electricity, in Iceland on geothermal electricity, in the future on solar or hydrogen energy. Isn't it better to invest all the conversion of hydrogen into energy in large safe and efficient power plants?
Asaf Azoulai
What do you propose to do with the fact that there are one and a half billion unnecessary people in the world according to you?
It won't help, no technology can replace the obvious of any kind nuclear energy.
Transfer all vehicles to electric vehicles.
Transfer all the electric stations to nuclear stations, and a Redeemer came to Zion...
The nuclear plants were thrown in some desert common to many countries,
Buy a reliable nuclear power plant (like the French ones, which did not have a malfunction)...
The territory will be territory that does not belong to anyone, in diplomatic matters...
The team The minimum team..
And besides, the birth rate should also be limited to 5 billion inhabitants in the world.
It will solve a lot of problems…
For decades they talked about moving to HD TV broadcasts and nothing happened until Congress came and enacted a law that in the year X all entities are required to broadcast HD and this gave the boost to the entire TV industry. All Congress has to do is to state that in 10 years from today it will be forbidden to sell in the United States a vehicle whose pollution level is more than 20% of the pollution level of an internal combustion engine (and in 20 years 10%, etc.). The free market will do the rest. The United States is the largest car market in the world and you will immediately see all the car companies directing all their resources to the development of these vehicles. In the end there will be a dominant technology and the market will determine that. Congress just needs to enact this little law. It's so simple - I don't understand why they get so involved. It is not the job of Congress to determine what technology will control these, only the regulation regarding pollution levels. It is also possible to go for a very strict law that for example also prohibits pollution by batteries, etc. As far as I'm concerned the cars will drive on water, there are already such technologies. Rabak why not do it?
Come on seriously:
What is this arrogance?
At first Hogin tries to teach me how to behave with idiots like Yanon Sharav and tell me that I should respect them even though they show a distinct disdain for all scientists and anyone who disagrees with them and when I try to explain to her her mistake both in the actual things and in the topic she chose to discuss you come, Roy, and explain to me that I must not defend myself against Hugin's attack.
Hoggin of course jumps at the opportunity to push another sting and you expect me to keep quiet.
You didn't succeed.
Roy. Thank you.. but it's already late.. and the smile on Nesuch's face.. thank you.
Always really..seriously.
Michael really amuses me..though sometimes..really annoying, but that's probably it
Part of the point here, the challenging part.
This is what a fight between educated people who behave like little children looks like.
You don't have to stoop to each other's level...
By the way, Hugin, as long as I didn't come across a statement from you that revealed your gender, I referred to you in a male body - even when you mentioned Qantas.
From now on I will contact you according to your gender until the next name change.
Shmulik:
I think the answers to all your questions are positive.
Regarding efficiency - the subject is complex and you can find a lot of material on this site
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle
and in the links marked from it
Hugin:
I listen to what is recommended to me and act according to my judgment.
In both cases it always worked for me and now it seems to have worked as well.
There are people who have nothing to argue with and should just be silenced.
Believe me, I engage in daily introspection, so your suggestion that I look in the mirror is unnecessary for me, but maybe you should apply it yourself.
I am blunt, when I am blunt, completely on purpose, and in every conversation with a matter-of-fact interlocutor I am always matter-of-fact.
If you have decided that I am an interesting enough subject for the psychological research you are conducting (not that I think you are qualified for this, but if you are an amateur psychologist) then you are welcome to read all my responses yourself and tell me where I deviated from the above description.
Hugin...maybe you will still try to answer me? This question intrigues me very much...
Michael:
It seems to me that you are currently dealing with forces that will not benefit you if you continue
react bluntly.
It was recommended that you, more than once, observe yourself and your words on the site, and every other word
Seems unnecessary, for now, to you.
to Shmulik,
Indeed, I wanted to respond to your question, perhaps a little more indirectly about abilities
and potential aviation capability, but for this purpose a suitable attitude is necessary
More, then maybe another time, from another article angle.
Is it possible to fly airplanes with hydrogen? fighter jets? ships? Huge trucks? Can turbines be used to generate electricity? I ask because from reading in different places I got the impression that this is a "weak" fuel compared to oil, and if an average car, for example, reaches 400-500 km between refueling, in a hydrogen car the distance from this is long (in favor of the gasoline car)...
Thanks to whoever answers the question
Hugin and all:
I don't need your blessing.
I will continue to treat with respect those who respect others and I will continue to let in the arrogant and arrogant and you only have to choose who you want to be counted with.
The article does not discuss the hydrogen production process at all, so it is not at all surprising that it is not clear from it "how the process of extracting the hydrogen resource is done" (it is better to learn to speak before starting to sing).
What does appear in the article is what you tried to write:
"If the hydrogen vehicles will indeed form the majority in the vehicle market, then there will be a considerable reduction in these two indicators, although the overall effect on greenhouse gas emissions will also depend on the production method of the hydrogen fuel"
Leder Nachmani and all the other talkbackists..
It is not clear from this letter how, previously, the process of extracting the right resource was done:
Do you take water - sea water, for that matter, undergo some kind of distillation process
From minerals, and then they are put into the "nitrification" state, that is, a vacuum process, for negation
The oxygen? H2O-0=H2 ?.? It seems on the face of it, a simple process, isn't it.?
And to Michael, if you want to be the winner, please - you have received the blessing of the road
Just let us reset, so that we can move forward.
Regards from Quantos in power..and all the other intelligences...our slogan is big
It is: "Polishness - or not to be", to your absolute choice in AAM, if to refer
Seriously and with respect, for all the beams here, from small to large, for all shades of angles and rainbows
And Yehuda, for Roy, for Ami, for the point... and all the other disputants, were there a lot, on the question
The God..between religion, science..and atheism..
The cause, or object-subject, the only one, or the riddle, which was not asked in the discussion there
He-she, what is actually the spirit of God floating on the surface of the water..
..it is possible that the spirit is indeed atheistic by nature, and God is plural, her children are plural..
And the spiritual people themselves, and the people of super-interrational science-turned her into Paul-
gas.
What's the point of crying for the dead, for the holocaust, to say Kaddish, only when it's gone
Falling in a mission or battle..saying God shit (quote from there)..actually, to whom
Your part in the discussion has consequences.. if not for yourselves and your flesh in the spirit of dynasties
of God's ways, which you are, actually?
And therefore, maybe it is true, to dedicate your lives to your work, to your generations, to your thoughts
The passing, as you are.
Think about all this.
Yours, in any case.. from Igra and Maimka, from the flight of the firebird, and simply from B'tselem.. to the added side, which is above and beyond all the bridges of time - and conditioned by time.
The war in Georgia was also because of oil
And the oil wars are just beginning
I hope that by then oil conservation will be a very evil thing that no one will want to invest in this field at all.
תיקון
They will prefer to keep it mainly for their personal use and future income.
It doesn't seem to me that there won't be any oil left in 2050, there will be, even a lot, except that the price will increase to hundreds of dollars per barrel, well above the record of $150 reached this year. The oil suppliers will maximize their profits by reducing production and raising its price. They will prefer to keep it mainly for their personal use and their future endeavors.
The price will be determined by the alternative sources of energy production such as biofuel and opening mines of oil-saturated ores as was done by the "Oilsands Quest" company in Canada.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
According to the peak oil production forecast, there will no longer be oil in 2050
So it really doesn't seem to me that this alternative can lead to a reduction in fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
This alternative will be forced by the power of the market and will arrive faster than expected
And right now it looks like the best alternative.
The biofuel alternative is forced and not really helpful (like waving a fan) more destructive than helpful.
The alternative to the battery in the form of cars will force us to depend on a renewable resource and the countries that produce it. (90% of it consists of vision, sophisticated PR and panic over fuel prices)
Two million right-hand drive vehicles relative to the order of magnitude of a billion gas vehicles moving around the world??
We did nothing!
good week
Sabdarmish Yehuda