Are these two forms of alternative fuels (solar, hydrogen) necessarily better for the environment? How?

Question

Are these two forms of alternative fuels (solar, hydrogen) necessarily better for the environment? How?

Answer 1

Since the only by-product of burning hydrogen is water, in theory, hydrogen is a fantastic green fuel.  The trouble is, we don't have a lot of hydrogen in a burnable form:  most of it is locked up in water, and freeing up the energy requires energy -- the same energy you will release when you burn it.  This makes hydrogen, at best, a battery and not a source of enerrgy.

Now to really muddy things up, water vapor is a green house gas, worse than carbon dioxide.

Answer 2

Cost is a good way to guage the amount of energy cheap material like silicon and hydrogen use to produce.

Hydrogen is obtained most easily from hydrocarbons (oil) by cracking it from the carbon, which has to be reacted with something (oxygen is easiest) to stabilize the process.  So to get H, you use oil and produce just as much CO2, as just burning the oil, and you get less usable energy out of it.  So it is worse than standard petro fuels overall.

Solar seems good, but the high price for the cells is due to the energy sucking electric furnaces that purify the silicon blank.  that electricity comes mostly from fossil fuel burning power plants.  It takes something like 25 years for a solar panel to "pay back" just the energy that it required for it's production.

You can use solar to get hydrogen from water, which is 100% clean, but the least effecient use of solar power.

It all comes down to "no free lunch".  Sad to say but the closest we have to that is fossil fuel because we get to enjoy it now, and future generations will suffer for our excess.

Answer 3

Not really, because we still need to depend on our fossil fuel as main fuels. We can design technologies related to solar and hydrogen but will it be practical? Can it fulfill the energy demand. I don't think so. I admit that we have all the technologies, like solar powered vehicle, fuel cell..etc. It will take some time for this alternative fuel taking place, but before that, i think the environment would be severely damaged before we introduce the technology worldwide. Man has always been greedy, and our greed will drive our generation to grave. It is our mistakes, and i hope all of us can start thinking and practice the solution before it is too late.

Regards

Rao

Answer 4

Yes, both of them are.

The only drawback of hydrogen, and it's a small one, is that it generates heat, which contributes marginally to the heating of the universe which will one day equalise the entire universe, but that's as maybe.

Hydrogen is a clean-burn fuel, yielding only energy and water in its combustion, and solar power is able, using photovoltaic cells, to convert light into electricity to power electric vehicles or electricity in homes.

Neither of these has any negative effect on the environment when harvested and used correctly, unlike our current dependency on fossil fuels.

Answer 5

Better than what? If your question is "are they better than coal, oil, gas or nuclear" there is no doubt whatsoever that they are better for the environment. The usual argument against both is cost. That has been a vaild argument until the recent few years, but you should also understand that huge subsidies have been provided by each of the other energy sources for many decades and they are still bad for the environment. If those same subsidies were provided to solar, there would be a basis for fair comparison of cost. The truth is that solar is now ready to begin competing with all other energy sources, particularly if you look at the backside of costs. For example, every aspect of nuclear requires extra measures to provide safety in mining uranium or thorium and for daily routine operation, to provide extra insurance for the power company, to handle the waste problem or to reprocess the waste into new waste and bombs and to provide ensuing heathcare. Similar subsidies have enriched the other fuel sources but we still hear folks complain that solar is costly. Furthermore, the sun will not increase it's cost of operation and does not require special handling. It simply deserves a fair basis for comparison. Costs should be judged long term, not short term. Even without major subsidies and if it costs more money up front to build solar power, that is the end of the expense. There is no disposal hazard, no dangerous by products relative to other fuels, relatively no damage to the environment. Solar and wind can even be used to economically produce hydrogen by using the electricity they generate. Hydrogen, when produced in this manner would be an expectionally clean back-up fuel for power plants when the sun does not shine.

Answer 6

At least for now they are better for environment. They seem to provide all the benefits we need today to help environment.

Answer 7

Hydrogen was the "Fuel of the future" 120 years ago, and will probably be 50 years from now.  On a $/BTU basis it is around $150 per gallon of gasoline equivalent.  We should continue research but don't count on it saving the planet. It is irreverent environmentally on the scale is will be used in the foreseeable future.  Solar is still priced too high to be competitive without major subsidies, but has made significant gains.  It could have a small environmental impact on saving fossil fuels, but the biggest advantage is probable in fewer new power lines.

Answer 8

solar!!! hydro requires lots of fuel(oil) to make.....