Re: Hydrogen trial in Perth, Western Australia, letter from project official

From: Don W. (dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com)
Date: 11/13/04 

Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:36:37 -0800

"Mike" <niche@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:41949959.D8824E0A@iinet.net.au...
> Hi chaps,
>
> I'd be interested in a critique of the Perth Western Australia
> Hydrogen bus trial, here is a pasted email from a government
> official in response to concerns from a perth resident. There
> is at least one bus currently doing the rounds and perhaps two,
> they are fuel cell based not ICE.
>
> I look forward to comments, observations, critiques etc. Email from
> official below.
>
> Rgds
>
> Mike
> http://niche.iinet.net.au
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

It's the same hydrogen endoctrination we get from the DOE here in the U.S.
The dangers of hydrogen are down-played to make hydrogen look like the
safest of fuels. (I don't mean that hydrogen cannot be safely handled --
only that it DOES present its own unique dangers which can be lethal and to
gloss over the dangers of extremely high pressure gas or very cold
cryogenic liquid can only lead to accidents.)

They still do not explain how the use of hydrogen will be beneficial. It's
either manufactured from fossil fuels (with horrendously inefficient waste
of energy) or it will require building a LOT of nuclear power plants to
replace fossil fuels. Which one of those alternatives looks attractive?
When presented with those two choices, proponents of hydrogen always bring
up solar, wind or geothermal. If solar, wind or geothermal are capable of
replacing fossil fuels, why have they not even begun to do so? In
comparison even to nuclear, solar and wind and geothermal are not even a
blip on the charts. If there was such a thing as a surplus of solar, wind
or geothermal electricity, the environmentally sensible application of that
energy would be to replace electricity generated by fossil fuels KILOWATT
FOR KILOWATT instead of squandering it on hydrogen only to end up with a
tiny fraction of the energy and the rest wasted.

Don't you wonder why no private fleets (taxis, delivery trucks, etc,) are
rushing to convert to hydrogen? Why then are government fleets so anxious
to spend your money on hydrogen? Could it be that your money is easy
money?

It's easy to find examples of hydrogen pilot projects, but difficult to
find data like 1) how much primary energy IN for each mile OUT? 2) what is
the TOTAL budget for the program and how many miles do they expect their
buses to travel? (how does this compare to petrol or diesel buses? From
where does this money come? To whom does this money go?) 3) how is the
range and performance of these buses affected compared to diesel or petrol?
4) compared to the pollution generated by these few buses if they were
diesel powered, how much pollution was generated by the primary power
generation and any conversions to hydrogen for these buses?

If your govenment or mine possessed a whole lot of solar, wind and
geothermal energy, it would be much wiser to use that energy to offset some
of the Because hydrogen is a terribly inefficient waste of energy,

Don W.

Relevant Pages