The Hydrogen Messiah
...nstead of jet fuel., which would reduce surcharges and increase safety in the event of a crash. The main reason for switching to hydrogen is the protection of the environment. Hydrogen produced from the electrolysis of water would not release harmful carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere, since it is not a byproduct of burning hydrogen (Pealting 28). This means that hydrogen would not add to global warming or contaminate drinking water via acid rain. The use of hydrogen to produce electricity would eliminate the harmful mercury deposits that are a byproduct of burning coal. By using hydrogen, the need for nuclear reactors, that produce toxic waste, would end. Another closely related reason to replace fossil fuels is the unlimited supply of hydrogen. Hydrogen production comes from the electrolysis of water and although fresh water is a finite, consumable resource, seawater is not. Seawater would be the main source for hydrogen-derived energy. The vastness of this resource and the fact that water naturally replenishes, combines for a limitless amount of hydrogen energy (Hoffman 158). By having an unlimited, renewable, clean and close energy source, America would have no need to drill oil wells or rely on imports to meet its energy needs. Another closely related reason to transition to hydrogen fuel is energy independence. The transition to hydrogen would include building a new supply chain, a new distribution network, and new hydrogen production facilities (The Hydrogen Economy 726). It would reduce the oil imports, stabilize the stock market, and increase American employment. The realization of a hydrogen-based economy would encourage manufacturers to stay in America because of the low cost of fuel and the ability of hydrogen to be stored indefinitely (Williams 97). The storage of hydrogen would give rise to a new American export. The United Sates would eliminate the trade deficit by selling stored hydrogen to other countries at a profit. The research showing the depletion of fossil fuels in the next half-century and the destruction of the environment from pollution, clearly support hydrogen as the only long-term permanent solution. America cannot continue to pollute the environment and destroy the ecosystem while claiming blissful ignorance. With a total population that only has America in the middle of the pack globally, the United Sates is the number one consumer of fossil fuels in the world (Rifkin 235). That also makes the United States the number one contributor to the destruction of the planet’s ecosystem. This alone should indicate the need for change. However, when combined with the finite nature of fossil fuels the signal for change becomes a glaring beacon. The transition to hydrogen energy has been slow due to objections over cost/benefit analysis. When the cost of a hydrogen-based economy is viewed using a period of 5-10 years, it may seem costly. However, when the cost of the transition, an estimated 3 trillion dollars (The Hydrogen Economy 448), is compared to oil imports that are projected at 20 million barrels per day, or 1 billion dollars per day (at current prices of $50 per barrel) by 2025 it seems almost inexpensive. The elimination of imported oil would balance the transitional cost in approximately 10 years (The Hydrogen Economy 395). Another objection to hydrogen economy is safety. Vehicular safety watchdog groups have pointed out that hydrogen is more volatile than gasoline and can be much deadlier in a vehicular accident. While it is true that hydrogen is more combustible than liquid gasoline, it is that very principle which makes it safer. The latest hydrogen fuel cell safety technology involved the addition of an interior membrane filled with water that lines the fuel cell. During a crash, the water filled membrane would be punctured before the fuel cell and allow water to react with the hydrogen rendering it inert. In computer simulated plane crashes and lab simulated automobile crashes the technology proved to be 100% safe (Schneider E5), making hydrogen fuel cells superior to all other forms of fuel cells. The evolution of a superior hydrogen energy system is the subject of great debate. The debate arises from what should be the preferred method of hydrogen production. Some economists argue that during the transitional period hydrogen should be captured from the burning of coal or natural gas instead of investing the money into developing the electrolytic process of seawater (Pealting 27). The drawback to this interim measure is the burning of fossil fuels. The fossil fuel method of hydrogen production still releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and does not eliminate pollution nor energy dependence making it an unsatisfactory method. Another much debated method is to replace coal burning electric plants with wind-generated power plants (The Hydrogen Economy 651) and simultaneously switching to fully electric vehicles. The problem arises from the vast tracts of land needed to support such a measure. In metropolitan areas, such as Chicago, wind driven power plants would need to be located up to 200 miles away from the city. The problems would arise from the delivery of energy from su...