FUELING AROUND

Nuclear physicist T. A. Heppenheimer, whose opinions I respect, wrote pessimistically (Letters, April 30) about hydrogen as an energy source in response to Alan Weisman’s March 19 article (“The Last Best Hope of Earth?”). Heppenheimer is an unswerving supporter of nuclear power, although he would support using nuclear power to generate hydrogen.

Solar energy, manufactured on a large scale, would cost as little as $1 to $2.50 per watt, depending on the technology used, which could result in solar-generated hydrogen that would be as economical as gasoline is now. As for storage, there are new carbon-fiber tanks that are 75% lighter than those currently in use and hold 47% more volume. These would offer a range of up to 200 miles for internal-combustion engines and almost 600 miles for fuel-cell or hydrogen hybrid electric vehicles.

When David Hilts mentioned “whale-oil shortage” “horse manure piling up in the streets,” the automobile as the “greatest-ever anti-pollution device” and nuclear power being hailed in the ‘40s and ‘50s as the “environmentalists choice,” he was exaggerating and voicing an inappropriate comparison to hydrogen. Those choices were never hailed as pollution-free, inexhaustible or renewable but simply as improvements. The environmentalists’ choices would clearly be: first, solar and wind; next, tidal energy, and then easily accessible hydroelectric and geothermal (in the proper location).

Also, Hilts’ reference to the toxic byproducts of photovoltaic electrolysis being a source of pollution may have been misinterpreted. What he meant, he told me, is that the manufacture of photovoltaic cells is an energy-intensive and polluting process. But the standard of the industry demands, for that process, an almost antiseptic environment in which the pollutants are separated, making them easier to recycle and render inert.

Regarding energy intensiveness, photovoltaics have a 30-year-plus life span and will get many times more energy out of the sun than it takes to manufacture them. Solar thermal energy would be better yet, with no significant pollutants involved, efficiencies up to 35% (although more maintenance is required). Solar thermal holds great hope for hydrogen.

Paul Staples, executive director

Clean Air Now!

Venice