Section 4: Policy Issues
From carbon to hydrogen energy
Previous page
Next page

Return to section table of contents


Effects of pollution
There is another debate wholly within the hydrogen movement: if hydrogen, how much. In other words, should we produce it from fossil fuels through reformation, or should it be produced through solar electrolysis (see sources in the hydrogen section earlier) and algae/bacteria microorganisms?
Some feel that going from a fossil fuel to methane economy rather than a hydrogen economy is falling short of the best. Even though carbon dioxide is not classified as a pollutant and is removed by plants, others feel that the fact that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the air with its possible adverse climatic impact, make carbon dioxide increase as serious as a pollutant.

In an interesting hyperlink we found from the California Hydrogen Business Association, Dr. Robert J. Wilder, a conservation director believes that it is like "backsliding" to head towards developing hydrogen technology that seeks to produce hydrogen fuel from gasoline, methanol, and natural gas. The reason is that this direction does not address the continued release of greenhouse gases as a part of the production process.
700 million global vehicles put 90% of the carbon monoxide into the air. They also put lead, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse hydrocarbons into the air. The US Clean Air Act of 1990 has impacted pollutants from 1975 through 1993. Although fossil fuel use increased 14%, sulfur dioxide decreased by 22% and lead decreased by 97%.
    REF: Department of Energy; Energy Policy and Everyday Life; chapter from Sustainable Energy Strategy - Clean and Secure Energy for a Competitive Economy; National Energy Policy Plan; Section 801; July 1995.
    http://www.hr.doe.gov/nepp/ch1.html#1.1

California's zero emission law
California USA passed a law in 1990 that requires 10% of all vehicles made in 2003 to be zero-emission vehicles (ZEV).

The California Air Resources Board concluded that hydrogen is not a "feasible fuel for private automobiles now or in the foreseeable future."
    REF: Spurgeon, Brad; Can 160-year-old Invention Transform Motor Vehicles?; International Herald Tribune; Thursday, March 18, 1999; page 10 - web hyperlink to story was good through 8/15/2000
    http://www.iht.com/IHT/SR/031899/sr031899c.html
The following comparisons are for carbon dioxide emissions per mile:
  • gasoline - .85 pounds
  • fuel cell reforming gasoline - .7 pounds
  • methane fuel cell - .15 pounds
  • hydrogen fuel cell - 0 pounds


A lesser of two evils
Methanol (versus hydrogen fuel cells) fuel cells produce CO2. However, did you know that decaying garbage also produces CO2? If we could capture the hydrogen from the decay of biomass waste, there would be no more discharge of CO2 than currently from decay without methanol capture. This argument is that environmentally it is a standoff. In the meanwhile we can better transition from fossil fuel to hydrogen.
Batteries are bad for the environment
Robert (methanol fuel cell) Hockaday points out that batteries (compared to the fuel cell) are bad for the environment. He points out the following problems:
  • hazardous materials could leak out of batteries.
  • improperly disposed of batteries pose a litter problem
  • improperly disposed of batteries pose a safety problem


Downside of fossil fuel use: oil spills
More than 60 million gallons of oil is dumped into the oil each year. Many improperly dispose of their motor oil from their car when changing their oil. 362 million gallons of oil comes to the oceans each year through industrial waste and cars.

Eco-systems are impacted through the ensuing death of fish, birds, and sea animals. Scientists use bacteria to eat ingest the oil from ocean spills. The press is largely silent on spills. Why?
Acid rain
Fossil fuel vehicles produce sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NO x). Industrial processes and the production of electricity from fossil fuels produce these compounds also.

Electricity generation puts 70% of the SO2 in the air of the United States. Likewise, electric power generation contributes 30% of the NOx pollutants in the air of the United States.

Nitrous oxide reacts with hydroxy radicals in the upper atmosphere to form nitric acid, like so:
    2NO + O2 ® 2NO2

    2NO2 + H2O ® HNO2 + HNO3

    NO2 + OH ® HNO3

95% of the nitrogen oxides come from human sources. 5% come from natural sources.
Sulphur in coal reacts with oxygen and then with water (rain), like so:
    S (in coal) + O2 ® SO2

    2SO2 + O2 ® 2SO3

    SO3 + H2O ® H2SO4
This is sulphuric acid. The chemical reaction is spurred on by ozone and ammonia pollutants. pH is the standard measure of acidity. In other words, a pH of 7 means a substance is neutral. Acids have a pH of less than 7. Acid rain has a pH of 5.6. Carbon dioxide in water also has a pH of 5.6.
Acid rain from melting snow in the spring affects insect, fish, and amphibian reproduction at a particularly vulnerable time. Sulphuric acid prevents fish from absorbing oxygen, salt and nutrients needed to survive. It is much like your having a cold. The fish's mucus builds up to fight the acid in their gills. As with the section on reefs (see policy section - topic #9), calcium needed for salt tissue retention reacts with the acidic pH, producing brittle bones and spines.

Acid rain costs $10 billion annually to the United States.
Moreover, sulphuric acid washes toxic metals from the soil. pH of 5.9 from acid rain will release harmless aluminum from the soil. In the water, this aluminum accumulation burns the gills right off of the fish. Acid pH of 5.6 kills algae. This reduces oxygen and results in total death in certain areas of waterways and lakes. Scientists have found that pH of 5.0 resulted in fish so deformed that they could not reproduce.

One of the heavy metals washed by acid rain is mercury. Eskimos and Indians in Canada and the United States eat fish with mercury levels of 15.7 to 32.7 parts per million. The safe level is 0.05 parts per million.

Lake Killarney in Ontario went from a pH of 6.8 to 4.4 from 1961 to 1971. The following indicates the results of pH on the aqua-eco system:
  • pH < 6 - flies needed for food by fish start to die (Mayflies, stoneflies)
  • pH < 5.5 - fish can't breath or reproduce
  • pH < 5 - fish die
Canada has felt the brunt of acid rain. Therefore, one can find many Canadian pages devoted to the subject. Forests are a major economic resource of Canada.


A dangerous feedback
Sulphur dioxide, that doesn't become sulphuric acid (see reaction above), comes back down to clog plant pores. So, not only do the aquatic living creatures have trouble reproducing, but also do the trees. Since trees rid the atmosphere of carbon dioxide, this is a dangerous feedback from fossil fuel use.
Dangers to human health
The saying is said, "Once you've lost your health, you've lost it all." Not all the money in the world can buy health back in some cases. Those with wealth can be reduced to ranks of the poor and destitute through health care costs as age takes its toll.

This important economic consideration will usher in the quality of life tradeoffs discussion below it.

The irritation to the respiratory system from acid rain is covered above.

These are the dangers to human health from gasoline, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
  • RVP - Reid vapor pressure. Gas evaporates and passes volatile organic compounds (VOC) toxins into the air
  • benzene is a proven human carcinogen (causes cancer - ever wonder why cancer rates are increasing. You thought it was due to longer life expectancies, didn't you?)
  • Up until the 1990 Clean Air Act, gasoline could have lead as an additive to increase effective octane rate. Lead, a heavy metal, is toxic to humans. Now ether and ethanol (called oxygenates) do the same function in gas, without lead.
  • nitrogen oxides - destroys the ozone layer. The ozone layer blocks harmful solar radiation that causes human cancer and skin damage.
  • carbon monoxide - dangerous to people with heart disease because it prevents the transport of oxygen in the bloodstream.
  • Ozone is great, when it is in the upper atmosphere blocking harmful radiation. But when there are pollutants in the lower atmosphere, these combine with ozone found in the lower atmosphere to from a harmful compound called "smog." Smog breaks down your resistance to respiratory infections. Smog makes you cough; it is felt by stinging eyes. So you thought it was your allergies acting up. It's probably really a result of your conventional gas car's emissions reacting with low flying ozone.
The value of life tradeoff
With the above discussion and with the possible environmental impacts discussed in earlier tabs of our policy section, the most difficult and painful valuation discussion now takes place.

Governments are concerned about the welfare of their citizens. However, many (such as the scientist in the first reference below) maintain that the real money to be made is not in the social welfare or environmental science arenas.

No, the real money to be made is in using one's creativity to create wealth in spite of environmental costs, at least when it comes to energy technology. Due to the laws of thermodynamics we discussed earlier, there is an energy cost in converting CO2 back to fossil fuels (hence, the notion of non-renewable energy source). It's like, hey, how do I get the toothpaste back in the tube, once it's out?

We realize that the jury's still out on linking climate change, environmental damage, and pollutants to car tail pipe discharge, but what if we assume, as a scenario, that there is a connection. What does that mean from a social science point of view? This is where political science (my nation's prosperity and happiness) and social science (what kind of quality of life do I have) become strange partners. You thought political and social science were the same thing, didn't you?

Under this assumed hypothesis (no fair arguing null hypothesis now, allow me the fiat - fiat is a playing field where these the assumptions are granted as real, when they are yet to be conclusively proven, for the sake of argument) that there is real anthropogenic environmental damage from use of fossil fuels to assure my nation's continued industrial development and wealth.

Now I have to value how much it is worth (cost benefit) to run my conventional gas car with its idling emissions because I don't want to invest the extra $10,000 to buy a hydrogen car? Political/social science calls this "utilitarianism." How much is each of the following worth:
  • the fish whose gills I burned out due to acid rain made from my car's SO2 and NO2
  • or better yet: the American Eskimos I poisoned because of the acid rain from my car emissions produced acid rain which "washed" heavy metals into their dietary fish supply
  • the number of friendly Canadians I put out of work because of the damage to their wood industry because the SO2 emissions browned their trees and clogged their pores so they could not either breath or reproduce
  • the number of people I killed through smog-induced heart attacks
  • the number of people through cancer I killed through enhanced ozone-depleted solar radiation exposure
  • the cost of tidal wave damage because the coral reefs died off due to calcium deficiencies from water acidity produced by burning fossil fuels
  • the number of people killed from drought from global warming
  • the number of people killed from mosquitoes carrying tropic diseases due to global warming from the physic of higher CO2 from my use of fossil fuels
  • the value of the homes and land covered by water as ice sheets melt due to global warming
  • the beautiful hard woods in New England (USA) that had to migrate to Canada due to global warming
Click here for the Value of Life poem written by Ben Matthews on December 7, 1999 in the UEA School of Environmental Science while he was waiting for his algae to grow.



An entry in the 2000 ThinkQuest Internet Challenge. Click on logo to the right for details.
Thinkquest Home Page









.