|
President George W. Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address
announced to the world a proposal for $1.2 billion dollars to be
spent on the research of hydrogen-powered cars (1). If actualized,
hydrogen power could reinvent our economy, which is now based upon
petroleum (mainly gasoline, diesel, and natural gas). It also promises
environmental friendliness as an energy source without the release
of noxious emissions, and politically offers freedom from foreign
oil. With these benefits, hydrogen energy sounds like the panacea
for America’s energy woes.
What the White House is not publicizing is that it plans to finance
the building of more nuclear power plants to fulfill future hydrogen
needs and the promise of a “clean” fuel (2). For this
fuel to become a realistic option, our primary source of hydrogen
must shift from non-renewable natural gas to the electrolysis of
water (3). This process uses electrical current to create two nodes:
one positive and one negative. These nodes are usually made of a
well-conducting metal, such as copper, and placed into a container
of water. One molecule of water contains two hydrogen atoms and
one oxygen atom and carries its own electrical charges. One oxygen
and one hydrogen create a negatively charged ion, OH- and the remaining
hydrogen atom is positively charged, H+. If enough current is applied,
the charges on these nodes will become strong enough to break the
bond between the H+ and OH- ions. After some rearranging, what was
originally water becomes H2 and O2, hydrogen and oxygen gas.
Though this is a simple chemical reaction, there is a catch: the
United States does not produce enough electricity to run this reaction
and harvest enough hydrogen needed to satisfy our transportation
needs. In fact, electricity production would have to double before
hydrogen cars and trucks will take to the streets (3). To build
more of the fossil fuel-driven generators, which make up 68% of
our current electricity production (4), defeats the purpose of making
an atmosphere-friendly fuel. As a result, the Bush administration
plans to help fund the creation of nuclear power plants that will
produce both electricity and hydrogen in the next five years (2).
But isn’t this also a dangerous ecological trade-off? Nuclear
power is known for providing emission-free power at the cost of
creating dangerous waste, some of which must be “kept isolated
from the human environment essentially forever” (5). The plans
for the clean up of nuclear waste are still in the early research
stages, so let’s hope the Bush administration has a plan for
storing the mess it wants to make. Cleaner skies and economic freedom
from the Middle East are great goals, but we should consider what
trade-offs we are making to ensure we are doing what is best for
our environment for the future.
REFERENCES
1) http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
2) Lortie, Bret. “Bush’s Nuclear FreedomCAR.”
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 2004, p12.
3) http://people.howstuffworks.com/hydrogen-economy.htm
4) http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec7_4.pdf
5) http://www.detnews.com/2001/editorial/0111/12/a09-341229.htm
|
