The hydrogen economy may well offer a way out of our energy insecurity. You would be aware that work continues here private companies and CSIRO.

This research is at the mercy of the market for funds, at least in the main, certainly receiving less than nuclear or coal. As always in Australia the take up by industry is slow and it is common for an overseas to see the possibilities and take the risk. Certainly RMI and others have done so. This may well satisfy the ideology of the current paradigm of economics but may be too slow if the time scale suggested by climatologists with its ‘tipping point’ in the near future. (the feedback of various processes will make any human intervention useless.)

The community, read government could (should?) encourage more than they presently do the measures improving energy efficiency and the nega watts of Lovins, as a way of delaying warming and the necessary discussion. Is it paranoia to point out that alternatives do not figure in the Nuclear debate? At State level this does occurs at slow pace, funded of course by the Commonwealth since the states have no power of taxation just targeted cost recovery.

But Hydrogen? Years away says the industry, too costly, too dangerous though I don’t remember them addressing the Twenty Hydrogen Myths that Lovins of RMI details.
An industry which Briefing Paper 8 www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm claims all the costs of nuclear are internalised. Funny the Brits are saddled with at least 30 pounds per person to pay just for the past clean up let alone decommissioning or further spill costs.

Truth in this as with so much else is hard to establish by any not in the field of energy research. Programmes such as Four Corners www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1568867.html
and its repetition by Clive Hamilton when he named what he considers the Mafia referred to in Four Corners programme. It might seem that the climate lobby has continued as Government policy though of course one is not allowed to refer to such.

Come on!! The myth of the "hydrogen economy" has been invented by ruthless investment companies to extract the last penny from the mum and dad investors as they fight the reality of the end of the fossil fuelled era (or should that read "error")My belief is that at present, most hydrogen is made from natural gas. Being itself a fossil fuel, it's price will rise along side that of oil to a point where it's conversion to hydrogen is unrealistic. The splitting of hydrogen from water is extremely energy intensive. Perhaps a cheaper way can be found, but lets not forget that hydrogen is an energy carrier NOT an energy provider and it carries a lot less energy than does oil. At present, if my extensive studies are correct (and I'm only human) it takes 4 energy units to extract 1 energy unit of hydrogen. Oil used to be the other way around but may now be closer to 1 to 3 and worsening. The big issue here is that people desperately need to hold onto their greedy little lifestyles. They don't want to see an end to economic growth, they don't want to have to give up their McMansions, foreign cars and fancy toys, so they cling just as desperately to any dream that appears to offer the false illusion of "the same lifestyle, different power source." Sorry folks, the party is over. Oil could reach $200 a barrel by mid next year and continue ever upwards. Even if a new energy source was halfway effective as oil, it will take at least 15 to 20 years to bring it on tap. By then, World wars will most likely to have reduced the population to a point whereby oil might just be viable again. Remember the Chinese curse..."May you live in interesting times." We do, and hydrogen isn't going to be our saviour.

The article glosses over the substantial energy penalties in generating, storing, distributing and using hydrogen. Generally speaking it is more efficient to use electricity straight from say a wind farm, than to electrolyse water, dry and compress the hydrogen gas, move it in cryogenic tanks or high maintenance pipes to an expensive and fragile fuel cell application. At present most hydrogen comes with CO2 byproduct and various ways to avoid this may prove uneconomic. Ironically the fact that Bush Jnr urged the US Dept Energy to help hydrogen development has brought much of this to light. It now seems hydrogen is best suited to niche applications such as energy storage at remote sites. The answer to energy problems lie elsewhere.

Coral is having a lend of us.

When you think of Hydrogen as a fuel, think MST problems.

M = Manufacturing problem. The energy to produce hydrogen is more than you can get out of it. There are better alternative manufactured liquid fuels. Petrol itself could be easily manufactured at nuclear or geothermal power stations and is the most cost effective transpoert fuel option when oil runs dry.

S = Storage problem. The H2 molecules are so tiny you have to spend extraordinary amounts of time and money to build high tech containers. There is some research that stores Hydrogen in metals and other chemistries but this research will typically take 100 years or more for fruition to mass markets. We'll be extinct by then.

T = Transport problem. You can't use pipelines to move Hydrogen under ultra high pressures. Trucks would be too hazardous carrying such high pressure loads.

A Hydrogen economy is an oil corporation red herring to keep us from developing viable alternatives to their life blood - OIL, Black Gold, Texas Tea. They extract grants and concessions for touting it, do nothing and laugh all the way to the bank.
They sit on their most important piece of technology, Laser Drilling, one of the main tools for Geothermal power development and research. They spin out of date blurbs on laser drilling technology (http://www.mines.edu/laser/FAQ.htm) but it never sees the light of day when it comes to developing geothermal alternatives.

If Australia wants clean, green geothermal power we need to develop laser drilling technology independently and the only way we can afford that cost is to ramp up value-added Uranium exports.

Others have beaten me to it on the point that Hydrogen is only a way of storing energy, so I'll just add, again, that the reason we're not using
much sun, wind, wave, tide or geothermal power is that they vary from being rather expensive (wind) to grossly expensive (solar photovoltaic).

Dr Bell should do some research before (or rather instead of) publishing such nonsense.

Sylvia.

I too wanted to take a poke at the hydrogen energy spin, too late. What about a response from Dr Bell answering for at least the MST issues?
Hydrogen may deserve have an increased role in very particular situations, but it seems literally impossible that it will be the backbone of any nations energy systems

Dr Bell gets is right about nuclear, but wrong about Hydrogen. Until they develop micro reactors capable of turning water into hydrogen at the point of injection in an engine, its a long way off. People also forget steam power and the success of the Pritchard steam car in the late 60's, which disappeared after being bought out by Ford.

Its purely power and control driving the energy debate. These fools that advocate nuclear mining and enrichment, are either blind or have a energy control agenda. Why would anyone except the foolish advocate energy sources that can easily and quickly destroy life on this planet and giving it to countries already in dispute with their neighbours. Not very logical Mr Spock.

Laser drilling hasn't even got of the ground and requires huge amounts of energy, considering it took a few kilowatts to cut an .05 inch diameter hole in the laboratory and they've yet to drill anything outside the lab. So in reality, currently its economically unproved, unwieldy and decades away.

Kaep, whats this mean “Petrol itself could be easily manufactured at nuclear or geothermal power stations and is the most cost effective transport fuel option when oil runs dry.”

How does this work, what materials are used to produce petrol from nuclear energy. Yep lets ramp up uranium enrichment here, that way they won't have as much work to do when they get it to make bombs. Believing any country with access to enriched uranium will not use it to protect themselves, is insane logic.

Luckily by the time they get round to doing anything, it will all probably be over. The true reality may just be that oil supplies are already in steep decline, hence the desperation of the USA to secure the oil of the world for themselves, by invasion and destruction of the country. When you consider the US is building an fortress embassy that covers 42hectares in Iraq, costing billions, yet nothing has been done for the rest of the country except systematic destruction by bombing and the securing of oil facilities.

Alkchemist,

The world (viz China and India) is moving to nuclear power whether we want it or not.
If we can sit back and bury our heads in our ore, bigger nations will eventually come get it. You must understand that ENERGY is survival, not some optional accessory to life.

If we set the agenda and force our customers to use bomb-bane materials like PBR pebbles we can have a win-win situation.
But If we go this route we are morally OBLIGED to use 30-40% of the profits of increased Uranium revenue streams in R&D programs for Fusion, Space and Gethermal generation technologies.

The only questions remaining are, are we responsible enough as world citizens to take on that challenge and do we have the smarts?

What'll it be people?

Spock .. OUT!

PS Laser drilling is far more advanced than you say and low level alkanes are actually cheaper to manufacture and transport than H2, without massive car manufacturing changes.
Throw out that 1960 edition of Funk and Wagnells now!

You are correct about hydrogen being an energy carrier, but is not oil also,at least to the degree that 100% efficiency is not achieved in its use? Hydrogen can be produced from the energy of the sun, the efficiency of conversion is lower, H2 becomes classed as a carrier. The sun however appears infinite oil does not.
Research continues and semiconductors are now available with 35% efficiency though if we used roof tiles with 13% efficiency much of
our energy needs are satisfied.
Cost? And that of nuclear including using lower grade ore, building and decommissioning.
Hydrogen can then be stored and used to fuel cars or other transport, which currently produces some , 60% (I think), of GHG. Electricity some 30% of GHG which nuclear reactors could obviate (largely).
The key is the energy carrier will allow the use of a non polluting motive force replacing oil fuels or oil + ethanol (etc). Could also be used in different forms of fuel cells reducing the transmission cost of energy.
Sure nuclear could be used to produce H2 but this would be also inefficient. If sun and wind provide part of the daylight energy need, the timing corresponding with the higher usage during the day and nuclear or other the night then adding H2 production to the nuclear use would mean a larger nuclear station (or other) requirement.
Sure as Amory Lovins points out and gives many examples of thinking to produce nega watts (energy un needed) can go a long way and combined with a degree of planned living plus more efficient energy consuming devices, including housing and commercial production, a lot further in the quest to reduce GHG emission
Lovins also of course has a publication listing twenty hydrogen myths which is worth looking at www.rmi.org./

"Sun, wind, wave, tide or geothermal sources could all be used to generate the power for the electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen to generate yet more power. And that route could be almost entirely pollution-free. What is more, it could avoid still more land and water being used to raise crops of soy, corm or sugar-cane to be used for fuel instead of food."

The laws of Thermodynamics disagree with you. Feel free to argue with them.

Kaep, “But If we go this route we are morally OBLIGED to use 30-40% of the profits of increased Uranium revenue streams in R&D programs for Fusion, Space and Gethermal generation technologies.”

Since when has any politician, or corporation shown any morality unless forced to. You only have to look at the continuing rape of the planet by corporations and the obligations they show for their employees to have enough sense to see they're all morally corrupt.

Sorry, but all my knowledge about laser mining comes from the site you posted, my comments are according to their statements.

Before WW2, they sold our iron ore to the japs as they were building their war machine, on the proviso they wouldn't use it in the construction's of weapons. Ask the thousands of dead Aussies whose steel the Japanese war machine was made from.

Low level alkanes, that would be another hydrocarbon product wouldn't it. Kaep you certainly only favour the worst technologies available and dismiss those with the quickest answers to ease the crunch. Everything you envisage is 20 years away, or destroying the environment, unsustainable or renewable.

The reason they haven't created fusion, is probably because they don't really understand how it works and hopefully never will. Its a little frightening to think they may create a sun in a laboratory and expect to contain it, when they have no idea how or why it works as it does. You may open a door into a hostile dimension for us. What would a fusion reaction do in an atmosphere filled with volatile gases like ours, the current examples operate in a different dimension called space that has many forces we have no understanding of. Without those forces keeping it stable, how would a contained sun in our dimension react. Not nicely I expect

Alchemist, fusion has already been created in the laboratory - many times. It was achieved a long time ago. What's stopped the construction of fusion power reactors is that all the existing experimental structures consume more power than they produce. Confining the plasma so that it doesn't get cooled by the reactor walls has proved harder than anyone ever imagined.

As for what would happen to our atmosphere. The answer is nothing would. Not only is this clear on theoretical grounds (temperature and pressure too low), but if anything were going to happen, it would have done so when one of the many hydrogen bombs were detonated.

Sylvia.

Apparently there is a lot of hydrogen in coal which can be extracted and the carbon can then be burried underground at a far lesser cost than the electrolisis of water.It is however extremely volitile and destructive if ignited in an uncontrolled situation.

I think our energy problems will have to be solved through a diversity of means however this is what irks the oil companies since their monopoly will be broken and even worse for Govt if the individual becomes independant through solar energy,since it becomes very difficult to tax.

Our Federal Govt for example is the only Govt on this planet that will not guarantee a tax free regieme for the ethanol industry beyond 2011.No one is going to invest in an industry that will be taxed and their competitors won't be.Brazil is leading the world in ethanol production and it is important since combined with petrol it is cleaner,environmentally sustainable and safe fuel.In the short term we should be looking at ethanol production as a means of extending the life time of existing petroleum fuels.

Australia could be pioneers of a lot of new energy initiatives.

Until we start demanding a better solution than our current Government has offered in the guise of Nuclear energy supplies, we continue to use of energy that harms the environment or continue to ignore the fundamental new technology to make them a cleaner energy.

The interest of our majority foreign owned mining companies in Australia, seem to be keen to direct government policy and review at Australia's 46% of the worlds Uranium deposits and using the ditches left behind to store the spent fuel after the international source has used it to benefit their countries environment.

It has been suggested that there is only 24 years worth of supply of Uranium and existing energy supplies have a longer life, almost triple of Uranium. So to look at Uranium is not as viable as the review it has warranted from our Government.

The Liberal governments review has come into question when it has appointed the chairman of the Nuclear committee into Uranium is associated as a director of a company board that make the deals for Uranium to be sold and supplied around the world.

Calls for his removal have fallen on the government deaf ears and Senate majorities seem to be driving over any debate or democracy.

"For electricity, you only have to enrich uranium to 3 or 4 per cent: for weapons to 90 per cent" -- wrong, of course. For electricity, natural uranium will serve; enrichment is not necessary at all.

--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: fire without exhaust gas:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html

Fusion - Why the EU, Japan, USA, China , South Korea, Russia and a few others are building a full size fusion plant in France. Because the potential there is much more than other technologies for large scale energy production (potential in environmental and resource benefits). And is Australia involved in any way? No.

That is what disappoints me most is that the Australian government lacks vision.

I am all for economics dictating the energy direction be it coal, nuclear, renewables, what ever. Leave that to the market place. But research where there are no guaranteed returns but great potential, government has to lead/subsidise the research. Companies are rarely going to head that way.

Hydrogen - another global experiment upon the atmosphere? We still have not completed the fossil-fuel one, commenced about one and a half centuries ago. The full results of that won't be available for another few centuries to come.

Indications for the fossil-fuel experiment currently under way are that the next few generations will be carrying the can. Carrying it very heavily indeed; all because we have been running it so enthusiastically in the absence of safeguards.

Will we be starting another one, in which every man, woman, and their dog will be snooping around the planet's surface in hydrogen-fuelled transport? If so, then a hell of a lot of hydrogen gas is going to be transferred from one place to the other - just shifting the stuff, apart from its manufacture.

There doesn't need to be a high percentage of aching joints in pipelines and fuelling systems to leak one hell of a lot of hydrogen into the atmosphere - and it sure will go up. What is it going to do up high before departing altogether - how will it interact with the mix of incoming solar radiation and neighbourly high-flying particles? We don't damn-well know! And we won't fully know in our time. Maybe it will impose even worse problems on future generations than those indicated by our current atmospheric experiment. Of course everything might be OK. Maybe.

The difference between a medical remedy and a poison relies heavily on dosage. And this planet is burdened with a very heavy dose of human numbers, their depredations and their wastes. It is being poisoned. Humans overdosing on energy, of any description, will only exacerbate things. Possibly the worst energy choice that humans could make would be to use the inadequately demonstrated ability in economics, safety, storage, of nuclear energy systems to generate hydrogen for universal energy storage.

It is high time to look at our overall systems' dependence upon growth, and contemplate achieveable and reasonable alternatives before conducting further experiments pushing our species into awkward corners.

Get a grip Collinsett.Hydrogen burns with oxygen to form H20,or commonly known as water.It is the cleanest energy on this planet.If we can harness it's volitility,we will solve the world's pollution problems.

Hydrogen may be a pipe dream, but solar is not - just the present solar method.

An Australian company enviromission (http://www.enviromission.com.au) is looking at constructing a solar tower in northern Victoria - the science behind it is reasonably sound and has been proven to an extent with a smaller scale project in Spain.
The company itself has been having a hard time securing funding and has scaled back their concept and whether they succeed will succeed is debatable, but they plan to begin construction on a demonstration tower early in 2007, so we'll know by 2008 whether they are genuine.

The concept behind the tower is pretty simple - build a large array of solar panels, and let the sun heat them up. The hot air trapped underneath must go somewhere and shoots up the tower, powering turbines along the way.
In some ways, the project is more like hydroelectric than solar in design.

Similarly, other projects are in the works in South Australia relating to water travelling through 'hot rocks' underground. Again, it's going to take a while to see how it pans out.

Yes, this is a common story with renewable energy, but now that global warming is reaching flash point it is looking like a more practical option, provided governments treat it seriously instead of adopting a knee-jerk nuclear reaction.

Forget hydrogen fo vehicles, which is where this discussion started.
The only practicle way of fuelling vehicles is by using electric cars, vans etc and charging them with a combination of wind generators and solar cells.
That is presuming the grid is not avaiulable for whatever reason.

Big catch in this scenario is whether the raw ingedients to build sufficient wind generators and solar cells for each vehicle owner and the technical backup to install and service is available.

Possible alternative; Have large commercial wind farms built large enough to supply the recharge demand, and then charge cars each night via the grid.
Storage solution possibilty;
Use spare power from wind farms to raise multi thousand ton weights in very large frames and when the wind drops the motors become alternators to feed power into the grid as the weights are lowered.
This I believe would have less losses than pumping water uphill as in the Snowy scheme.

Dr Bell was formerly Professor of International Relations and should stick to her own field. She appears to know nothing of basic chemistry. Now that science and engineering and maths are going out of fashion we are being continually misinformed on technical subjects by academics weigh out of their depth. You would not choose a lawyer to operate on your heart or an engineer to represent you in court.