The rising price of gasoline has brought hydrogen fuel back in focus. Hydrogen is indeed the ultimate fuel. When an automobile engine burns hydrogen the exhaust is pure clean water, not the carbon monoxide fumes from gasoline that deplete the ozone layer. How more environmentally friendly can an exhaust be? Anybody against this? Any problems? Well, yes. To begin with hydrogen is a gas and is highly reactive thus potentially explosive so there must be some steps taken to minimize this problem. This problem is being worked on but so far there is no good solution. By golly, though, an exhaust of pure water is the ultimate automotive fuel and worth working toward, wouldn't you say? Well, perhaps. Read on:

Even if the above mentioned problem is brought under control (and I believe it can be) there is a much more daunting problem. Where in hell do we get the hydrogen? As mentioned, hydrogen is a very active chemical element. It does not like to stay single, so to speak. As a consequence it eagerly combines with many other elements. Our oceans are full of a hydrogen compound, water - two gases combined to form a liquid. Remember H 2-0 from your high school chemistry class. Fantastic quantities of hydrogen are in our oceans but, alas, combined with oxygen and this presents a problem.

Where then do we get the pure hydrogen for the fuel we wish to use? Unfortunately first we must separate it from some hydrogen compound such as water. You may recall from high school physics that hydrogen can be obtained from water by means of electrolysis. This process requires an input of energy. In fact, it takes more energy to separate it out than it will give us back as hydrogen fuel for our cars. Where do we get the energy that is required to separate out the hydrogen? We are back to square one - to using fuel oil, coal or nuclear energy to separate out the pure hydrogen. What is the gain? One can argue that it is more efficient to do this on a grand scale than at the automotive level and this is so but not to any profound degree. It still requires burning fossil fuels (or using nuclear energy) with its well known dire consequences.

Nuclear energy could be used. It is clean with regard to polluting emissions but we have fear of a massive melt down such as happened in Russia. Nuclear energy involves dangers but as far into the future as we can now see it will, I feel, inevitably have to be the future energy of the world.

As an aside, there are two nonpolluting energy sources open for exploitation: solar and wind (hydro power is a third source but it has already largely been fully exploited). Each of these have severe limitations such as when the wind doesn't blow or the sun is obscured by cloud cover or at nighttime. In other words output is erratic. Unfortunately electricity cannot be stored for future use. It must be consumed when generated. (Insignificant quantities can be stored in batteries at extremely high cost per energy unit and, of course, water behind a dam in effect is a way of storing some energy.)

Impressively the Danes now generate 18 percent of their national power requirements from wind power. In a recent issue of National Geographic it featured a super windmill now under construction in Denmark. Each of three blades is more than 200 feet long. Each blade is longer by far than the Statue of Liberty is tall. The article said that while the US is still "hunter-gather" of oil sources the Europeans have become "farmers" of fuel sources.

Theodore Theodorsen