Stan deserves an "E" for effort in giving visibility to the need for an informed debate about the tough choices we need to make. He gets an "F" on some of the "facts" cited.
It is true in the short term there is no total alternative to fossil fuels. The debate then is where do we obtain them; what are the costs and risks in doing so; and how do we balance that. And "NIMBY" can be a valid decision -- it just needs to be a political choice, with us all participating, and all the costs known and weighed. But even if we can find substitutes for fuel-sucking SUVs and trucks, we'll still need hydrocarbons as feedstock for the plastics, chemical, pharmaceutical and other industries.
In the longer term, choices can be made for the power sources used in personal cars, the commercial fleet of trucks and buses, trains, ships and the generation of electricity in remote locations with long periods of no sun. Fuel cells can be one of the choices available.
Stan's angst over the possible presence of hydrogen and oxygen for fuel cells in cars is unnecessary. Cryogenically stored oxygen and hydrogen were needed in fuel cells used in Saturn/Apollo and the shuttle because they operated in the vacuum of space. We're down on Earth with an atmosphere, and however polluted it may be, there is still enough oxygen present to support us, internal combustion engines and whatever fuel is used in fuel cells.
And hydrogen can be stored in a safe, non-gaseous form -- as a metal hydride that is heated just sufficiently to drive off the gas. The heat comes initially from an external source but then can be taken from the ongoing combustion process. Technology doesn't allow that to happen economically at present.
While hydrogen is the cleanest fuel, fuel cells can be engineered to economically operate on almost any hydrocarbon fuel -- if we decide to fund the research.
There are hybrid motor systems -- a smaller, more efficient gas engine with generator/electric motor; they have received a lot of attention. But we have yet to completely explore current technology.
A while back, in a demonstration project, the Union of Concerned Scientists re-engineered Ford Explorers with two types of highly efficient, internal combustion engines. The least extreme change met 2004 emissions requirements, gave comparable performance with respect to top speed and acceleration (actually shaved almost two seconds off the 0-60 time), and had a near 50 percent increase in mileage. See www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_and_suvs/ page.cfm?pageID=227.
There are alternatives; they have a cost. It's getting closer to decision time.
We all need to be part of the debate over what choices we make, but it needs to be an informed debate. Alarmist comments based on an absence of facts don't contribute to that debate.
Homer resident Dave Green is a retired safety employee for Arco.
We encourage you to add your comments. To prevent spam, comments with links are manually approved during the normal business day. Please be respectful of others with your comments, bear in mind anyone in the community may be reading your comments.
