Hydrogen cars ‘not best pollution solution’
Even in the long term, hydrogen cars may not be the most effective method of curbing green house emissions and abandoning our dependence on oil, according to US scientists.
They argue it would be better to concentrate efforts on building more fuel efficient conventional engines.
“Because the prospects for hydrogen cars are so uncertain, we need to think carefully before we invest all this money and all this public effort in one area”, according to Alex Farrell, assistant professor of energy and resources at UC Berkeley.
As George Bush is praised for promising $1.7bn for hydrogen research and an accompanying infrastructure initiative, Prof Farrell, and his colleague David Keith, associate professor of engineering and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, suggest in a paper in Science magazine that the support for hydrogen technology is somewhat selfish.
This approach would avoid challenging drivers to change their car dependent habits, and does not impose pressure on the motor industry, Prof Farrell notes. In fact subsidised research in the field will improve car engine design, whatever the fuel.
The trouble is that hydrogen has to be generated in the first place, and current production from coal and oil produces ‘substantial’ carbon dioxide.
The costs of building an infrastructure that would allow a widespread change over to hydrogen cars are substantial, and the pair estimate this would cost at least $5000 per vehicle (over £3000).
There are also logistical problems, and accompanying costs of transporting, storing and distributing a gaseous fuel.
All these problems could be overcome if necessary, Prof Farrell concedes, but proposes a raft of improvements to current cars and current environmental rules which could be 100 times cheaper than hydrogen cars at reducing air pollution.
For several decades, the scientists found, the most cost-effective method to reduce oil imports and carbon dioxide emissions from cars will be to increase fuel efficiency.
“You could get a significant reduction in petroleum consumption pretty inexpensively by raising the fuel economy standard or raising fuel prices, or both, which is probably the cheapest strategy,” Prof Farrell argues.
This may even have a negative cost, as buying less fuel would save more money that the added costs of highly efficient cars.
Unlike hydrogen cars the technology is already in place, it is argued, and the motor industry and consumers simply need the economic incentives to buy fuel-efficient cars.
Other alternatives to the hydrogen solution include petroleum substitutes such as ethanol, or a focus on reducing on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from electric power plants, if a reduction in carbon emissions is the principle aim.
And even if the hydrogen approach is the most attractive, the scientists say that applying the technology in other areas of the transportation sector – ships, trains and large trucks instead of cars – would produce greater air quality benefits, as these vehicles have higher emissions.
Profs Farrell and Keith call for more research before a hydrogen economy becomes the chosen recipient of huge sums of investment.
“Hydrogen cars are an attractive vision that demands serious investigation, but it’s not a sure thing,” they write.
