George W. Bush medium successful in promoting hydrogen economy?

Hydrogen is a secondary fuel and has to be produced by other sources of energy.

It is easily storable, unlike electricity.
 

Delta Force

Banned
How would hydrogen be produced in this economy?

Nuclear power plants are the best way to produce hydrogen short of using hydrocarbons.

However, even if Bush started promoting nuclear energy in 2001, there would be few if any new plants completed by 2009.
 
A Hydrogen economy is a lovely idea, but falls prey to massive practicalities.

Natural Gas is easy to distribute in pipelines. Hydrogen? not so much. It leaks FAR more, is less energy dense (iirc), and hydrogen embrittlement of e.g. steel is a real thing.

If you want to use hydrogen in cars, you can either burn it (in which case it is far inferior to natural gas in terms of how much energy you can store in a car, let alone gasoline), or use fuel cells. Unfortunately, fuel cells tend to be expensive, heavy, have nasty operating conditions (some of them), and also aren't nearly as efficient as you'd like.

Besides, the cheapest current method of producing hydrogen is stripping it off natural gas - so that doesn't give you any net benefit over natural gas.

In another half century, using solar and wind to produce hydrogen may well be a thing, partly using stored hydrogen to even out the erratic power production of those renewables. But you need a whole new infrastructure to distribute the stuff, and that costs money.
 
Nuclear power plants are the best way to produce hydrogen short of using hydrocarbons.

However, even if Bush started promoting nuclear energy in 2001, there would be few if any new plants completed by 2009.

Bush did promote nuclear power. The energy policy act of 2005 provided support for new construction.
 
A Hydrogen economy is a lovely idea, but falls prey to massive practicalities.

Natural Gas is easy to distribute in pipelines. Hydrogen? not so much. It leaks FAR more, is less energy dense (iirc), and hydrogen embrittlement of e.g. steel is a real thing.

If you want to use hydrogen in cars, you can either burn it (in which case it is far inferior to natural gas in terms of how much energy you can store in a car, let alone gasoline), or use fuel cells. Unfortunately, fuel cells tend to be expensive, heavy, have nasty operating conditions (some of them), and also aren't nearly as efficient as you'd like.

Besides, the cheapest current method of producing hydrogen is stripping it off natural gas - so that doesn't give you any net benefit over natural gas.

In another half century, using solar and wind to produce hydrogen may well be a thing, partly using stored hydrogen to even out the erratic power production of those renewables. But you need a whole new infrastructure to distribute the stuff, and that costs money.

Yeah I always figured that by the time any hydrogen infrastructure possible hybrid vehicles will be in too strong of a position.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Bush did promote nuclear power. The energy policy act of 2005 provided support for new construction.

Yes, it's just that without changes to regulation and the existence of people with experience in nuclear reactor construction (unlikely, since most reactors were completed by the 1980s), it's unlikely that a nuclear power plant can even be built in an eight year presidential administration.
 
Yes, it's just that without changes to regulation and the existence of people with experience in nuclear reactor construction (unlikely, since most reactors were completed by the 1980s), it's unlikely that a nuclear power plant can even be built in an eight year presidential administration.

1) NRC would need major reform.
2) Then go factory produced nuclear rectors not unlike ThorCon
3) Fund it with good amount of money

So if we compress developepemnt to two years, mass production to two years it could lead to change by 2008.
 
Yes, it's just that without changes to regulation and the existence of people with experience in nuclear reactor construction (unlikely, since most reactors were completed by the 1980s), it's unlikely that a nuclear power plant can even be built in an eight year presidential administration.
I understand that it was mainly economics, including such factors as the price of oil in the 1980s (flat or even a price decrease).

That this was why the U.S. stopped building new plants, rather than a change of regulatory climate following Three Mile Island.
 
The following is from President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address:

President George W. Bush
January 28, 2003
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29645

" . . . Tonight I'm proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles.

"A simple chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen generates energy which can be used to power a car, producing only water, not exhaust fumes. With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen and pollution-free. Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy. . . "
 

Archibald

Banned
A Hydrogen economy is a lovely idea, but falls prey to massive practicalities.

Natural Gas is easy to distribute in pipelines. Hydrogen? not so much. It leaks FAR more, is less energy dense (iirc), and hydrogen embrittlement of e.g. steel is a real thing.

If you want to use hydrogen in cars, you can either burn it (in which case it is far inferior to natural gas in terms of how much energy you can store in a car, let alone gasoline), or use fuel cells. Unfortunately, fuel cells tend to be expensive, heavy, have nasty operating conditions (some of them), and also aren't nearly as efficient as you'd like.

Besides, the cheapest current method of producing hydrogen is stripping it off natural gas - so that doesn't give you any net benefit over natural gas.

In another half century, using solar and wind to produce hydrogen may well be a thing, partly using stored hydrogen to even out the erratic power production of those renewables. But you need a whole new infrastructure to distribute the stuff, and that costs money.

That's the exact reasons why I think ammonia would be far better.
 
In another half century, using solar and wind to produce hydrogen may well be a thing, partly using stored hydrogen to even out the erratic power production of those renewables. But you need a whole new infrastructure to distribute the stuff, and that costs money.
Alright, so some potential application.

If the numbers change and/or the technology improves, it seems like there is considerable advantage reducing carbon emission at a somewhat centralized source rather than every single automobile.
 
Top