Hydrogen Energy Debated

Re “Bush Plan for Hydrogen Is Just Hot Air,” Commentary, Nov. 9: Jeremy Rifkin suggests that the United States should stop research toward advanced methods to produce clean, low-emissions hydrogen from fossil and nuclear energy sources and instead bet the future of the environment and global climate solely on as-yet-unproven renewable electricity and hydrogen.

Experience should caution us about the environmental impacts and economic costs that renewable energy sources would generate if they were scaled substantially beyond their current, highly subsidized and still small role as boutique energy sources.

To construct equal power-generation capacity, year-2000-vintage wind turbines consume 10 times as much steel as year-1970 nuclear power and 140 times as much steel as year-2000 natural-gas power plants.

These huge differences in resource consumption justify caution in evaluating the claims of advocates and, likewise, justify a balanced portfolio of strategies to bring down future carbon dioxide emissions.

Per F. Peterson

Chair, Department of Nuclear Engineering, UC Berkeley

*

Rifkin’s excellent commentary dealt with the obvious good that would come if we could successfully attain the hydrogen economy. Rifkin rightly points out that the problem is in producing cleanly the vast amounts of the gas that would be needed. What Rifkin and others who have addressed the same problem miss is that the only satisfactory, clean production scheme involves nuclear fusion. It is time for the United States to establish a Manhattan Project-type assault on fusion and, Kennedy-like, say that we are going to be on the hydrogen economy in a certain number of years. In my opinion, given the correct emphasis and funding, 20 to 30 years seems about right.

R.F. Brodsky

Redondo Beach

*

The unlocking of hydrogen from other elements is very expensive. Hydrogen cannot compete at the bottom line with other sources of fuel. Two renewable sources of energy, hydroelectric and geothermal, are very limited. Wind and solar are cyclical and require vast areas of space to meet our energy needs. At present I can install a solar system to meet my electrical needs. It would take 14 years to pay for itself if I do the maintenance service. The solar cells are guaranteed for 20 years. The batteries?

I am very happy to let Edison supply my energy needs.

Frank Myers

Downey