FC: Responses to are Feds wasting tax money on hydrogen full cells?

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

[The depth and breadth of knowledge on this list is, once again, 
impressive. The previous message is here: 
http://www.politechbot.com/p-03020.html I'll post Steven Bond's response 
first; the criticism follows. --Declan]

********

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 20:04:08 -0500
From: Steven Thomas Bond <stbond () citynet net>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: fuel cell cars

The response was interesting - it's amazing how many people can read
something and not get the point!  One other thing people should know is
that a recent  American Scientist ( published by Sigma Xi, NOT
Scientific American) carried a book review written by someone (with good
credentials) prediciting the world maximum oil productionwould occur in
2002-2004. The maximum US oil production, predicted in 1956 for 1970,
occured just as scheduled.

********

From: "Stephen Downes" <sdownes () downes ca>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: Are Feds wasting tax money on hydrogen full cell technology?
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 07:46:28 -0400

Hiya,

I'm surprised you circulated this old argument. It is based on a false
assumption: that the use of hydrogen fuel cells is intended to be a new
source of energy. But the use of hydrgen fuel cells is intented instead to
create a source of energy which is (a) portable, (b) clean, and (c)
renewable.

Nobody expects hydrogen to be produced in bulk by burning fossil fuels. It
can be produced in bulk, however, through the use of renewable, non-portable
forms of energy, such as hydroelectric power or solar power. The process of
hydrolysis of water requires only water and electricity. That's what makes
it so attractive.

Furthermore, as anyone who took high school chemistry class knows, there are
low-energy chemical means of extracting hydrogen from complex compounds.
While it would be useless to extract hydrogen from methane, which is already
a perfectly good fuel, it would be useful to extract hydrogen from, say,
hydrogen sulfate, which is not a fuel (hydrogen sulfate might not be the
best example, but you get my point).

Not all hydrogen production, therefore, needs to be based on high-energy
processes (indeed, the whole concept of fuel cells is the use of hydrogen in
a compund with is extracted through a low-energy reaction, creating, on
balance, energy.

I am by no means an expert in the field. Not even close. But the rant you
distributed is easily refuted by people knowledgable in the field.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------

Stephen Downes ~ Senior Researcher
National Research Council
Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada

http://www.downes.ca stephen () downes ca
stephen.downes () nrc ca   http://www.iit.nrc.ca/e-learning.html

Subscribe to my free daily newsletter featuring news and articles
about online knowledge, learning, community
http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/website/subscribe.cgi
or read it at http://www.downes.ca/news/OLDaily.htm

********

From: "Hermits \(E-mail\)" <Hermits () iowatelecom net>
To: <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Are Feds wasting tax money on hydrogen full cell technology?
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 13:34:07 -0600

Declan, for the Politech list.
========
While Doctor Bond is quite correct in what he says, although I note that he
omitted the immense costs of storing Hydrogen (a relatively incompressible
gas) which can sometimes take more than 12 times the energy that it contains
and also omitted to note that a bucket of gasoline holds more hydrogen than
a bucket of liquid Hydrogen (i.e. while its energy per mass density is high,
its energy per volume density is currently very poor. However, I disagree
with his conclusion, largely because of what he didn't say. Let me attempt
to justify why.

If we examine current and potential power sources, they fall into a number
of categories (roughly organized by my memory of current usage patterns).

Fossil Fuels (Gas, Oil, Coal)
Nuclear Power (Fission and Fusion)
Hydroelectric Power
Renewable Biomass (Wood chips, corn-stalks, animal and human waste and other
plant mass including algae)
Solar Power
Wind Power
Geothermal Power
Wave Power
Sea Currents

Of these, only Gas and Oil (and possibly coal or plant derived gasses,
liquids or emulsions) are readily transportable at reasonable cost. The
balance (other than solar power which is seldom cost-efficient at current
pricing) require large fixed installations to be used cost-effectively. All
of the renewable resources suffer the common disadvantage of having
relatively low energy density (excepting possibly for sea currents, but they
have other disadvantages (corrosion, potential environmental damage, storm
damage, etc.) Certainly they are not particularly easy to distribute while
retaining reliability.

Current distribution practice is to convert other sources of energy into
electrical energy (with associated conversion losses), transmit it to a
point of use (using electrical transmission lines also with various losses),
or use it to charge secondary batteries (with very much larger losses) and
at the end-user, convert the electric power into the energy form required
(light, heat, kinetic energy, etc. again with associated losses).

This is a very inefficient process. Particularly when the first step is
performed using heat engine technologies - as is done in most power
generation facilities today. This is especially relevant in the first step,
where the laws of thermodynamics restrict the overall efficiency of the
chemical to electrical process to roughly 40% of the total chemical energy
available. In addition, this first stage as currently implemented, tends to
produce large amounts of pollutants and noise, which is why the conversion
plants tend to be centralized and located well away from the end-users.

Under slightly different processes, and assuming the availability of
appropriate fuel-cell technology, we could do a great deal better.

For fixed installations, this might involve the production of Hydrogen using
one of the existing mechanisms and distributing it directly (and
uncompressed) to the point of use using pipelines. This would involve only
the pumping losses which are small, and minor leakages. At the point of use,
a fuel-cell would transform the Hydrogen into electricity at efficiencies
approaching 85% and the balance, rather than being released as waste heat
(as is the case with most current energy sources) would be applied to
heating and cooling tasks. This can increase the overall efficiencies to
almost 100% - certainly into the 90% range. Pollution would be non-existent
(good design would see the "waste water" being used directly. Where the area
is fortunate to receive sufficient insolation (sun) to justify solar
technology, the addition of solar collectors to produce instantaneous power
and converting surplus solar power generated, using the fuel-cell to
disassociate water, back to Hydrogen, and "storing" the resulting Hydrogen
by pumping it back into the network could produce over-unity returns. The
Implementation of such a regime would have the potential of dropping the use
of fuel in fixed installations by somewhere in excess of 50% - which, if
Keynesian economics still have any validity, should have a fairly marked
impression on the cost of energy. Indeed, such a program is close to being
viable and would have a very rapid cost recovery - certainly under a decade.

For portable installations, the co-generation benefits would not apply, and
transformation losses would be greater, but a vehicle using a fuel-cell
cycle as its primary energy source would still offer overall fuel energy
usage efficiencies of up to around 70% as compared to the optimum attainable
of about 40% using diesel-electric technology. Again, such technology
appears to be very close to fruition, and the benefits are significant,
non-polluting and self-funding, even where the Hydrogen is produced from
existing energy sources. The sole difficulty here is attaining a suitably
energy dense storage method, which is why this area is receiving a great
deal of attention. One of the most promising routes appears to be that of
transforming existing fuels to Hydrogen within the vehicle, but even without
this, high pressure storage offers the potential of performance similar to
existing vehicles, a range of around 300 miles, immediate recharging and
zero-pollutants. Probably for a long-term lower cost than existing vehicles.

Until we develop other sources of energy to transform into Hydrogen (which
will happen), we have already mastered the efficient high-volume conversion
of existing hydrocarbons to Hydrogen in reasonably compact, silent and
non-polluting packages (a single 40' container would serve the requirements
of a suburb). This suggests that, in a major change in technology deployment
methodology, that the transition to a Hydrogen fuelled economy might best be
accomplished from the consumer upward, in a highly distributed fashion. If I
were considering this I would suggest reengineering our reticulation
architecture for water, signals, energy, solid waste and sewage, and suggest
that this could ultimately result in a 50 to 60% overall reduction in
infrastructural overhead and a much small environmental impact than current
methodologies.

So is fuel-cell technology development a waste of money? I rather think not.
I would suggest that the US urgently requires technology in order to remain
competitive in a dynamic world.

Regards

Carl Wagener
Chief Scientist, Hermit Technologies, Inc., Iowa, US.
tel: 1.641.472.7729 email: hermits () iowatelecom net
We perform research and write reports for a living.

********

From: mike () jurney org
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 08:28:45 -0500 (EST)
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: FC: Are Feds wasting tax money on hydrogen full cell technology?

Declan,
  Chrysler recently announced a prototype hydrogen fuel cell vehicle that
uses sodium borohydride to store hydrogen, which is catalytically
converted into free hydrogen and sodium boride (borax) during operation.
The borax can then be recycled.  This is one example that circumvents most
of Mr. Bond's objections to hydrogen fuel cell powerplants in personal
vehicles.  The main question is still the energy cost of producing the
fuel itself, a process which still uses natural gas and is relatively
inefficient.  Still, as a very new system sodium borohydride seems to show
quite a bit of promise over compressed hydrogen as a portable fuel cell
power source.

********

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 12:03:01 +0000
From: Ken Brown <k.brown () ccs bbk ac uk>
Reply-To: k.brown () ccs bbk ac uk
Organization: Birkbeck College Central Computing Services
To: declan () well com
CC: politech () politechbot com
Subject: Re: FC: Are Feds wasting tax money on hydrogen full cell technology?

I think the CSM article confuses a couple of completely different
issues  (and perhaps the US government do too).

1) the prospect of using hydrogen fuel to reduce local air pollution in
a smog-prone city. This is the same reasoning as that behind
battery-powered cars. Total pollution may not be reduced (though it
might be because the burning is done in large plants) and total CO2
production is probably not reduced. Total energy consumption is likely
to go up. But the concentration of pollution in some areas is reduced,
and the chance of smog lessened. The emissions all happen at an
out-of-town plant, not in the city streets.

This might actually be a good idea for some big, car-ridden, cities. But
it is a way of spending money to improve  air quality, not a way of
saving money.

2) the fantasy of getting cheap hydrogen from hydrolysis powered by
fusion, or orbital microwave generators, or geothermal power, or
whatever. (And of course the even fantasticker fantasy of getting free
hydrogen from some as-yet-undiscovered cold-fusion-like handwaving
involving magic membranes or clever catalysts or some such hope of
getting something for nothing)

This is probably a red herring, because (a) we don't know how to do it
and (b) for most applications other than motor vehicles it is cleaner,
safer, and cheaper, to use the electricity directly rather than go
through a hydrogen stage.

Personally I think that greater use of wind, waves, solar, geothermal &
hydro power (as well as local methane plants) are a very good idea. But
the main reason for using them are to reduce CO2 emission, pollution,
world dependence on a few oil-rich regions, reduce local and personal
dependence on a few large corporations or the State, etc. etc. They
aren't magic bullets that will give us free, or even cheaper, fuel.

Of course we /had/ a "hydrogen economy" once upon a time. The "town gas"
that lit our streets and warmed our houses from the mid-19th century was
dirty hydrogen made from coal in coking plants.  Most towns and cities
in northern Europe (I don't know about the USA) are piped for gas right
now, it is the cheapest and cleanest fossil fuel and nearly everyone
uses it for domestic heating. We converted the infrastructure from
hydrogen to methane in the 1960s and we could go back if we wanted to
and were willing to spend the money.

But why bother?  As Bond points out it makes more sense to just burn the
methane. The way to reduce global CO2 emission or is to burn less fuel;
not to burn it in giant state-sponsored oxygen plants and then pipe it
to LA as a sort of Gasoline Nouveau (Or should that be Nouvelle
Gasoline?  I failed French at school)

Ken Brown

Oh, and anyone remotely interested in this sort of thing and with a
sense of humour should be looking at Bruce Sterling's
http://www.viridiandesign.org :-)

********

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:18:40 -0500
From: Kent Borg <kentborg () borg org>
To: Steven Thomas Bond <stbond () citynet net>,
        Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: FC: Are Feds wasting tax money on hydrogen full cell technology?

Steven Thomas Bond <stbond () citynet net> wrote (and Declan posted on
his public list):
> The really big problem with hydrogen is where to get it.

Yes, it grates whenever I hear that hydrogen is plentiful, as though
these cars could simply burn water and produce, um, water.  Steven
Thomas Bond writes well about how many ways of producing hydrogen are
unappealing, but he leaves out any of the good ideas.

The idea I like is that of putting up windmills where farmers once
upon planted trees as windbreaks.

Windmills are getting reliable and putting a row at the edge of a
windy field doesn't much interfere with farming.  It just so happens
that many US farming areas are also really windy.  One of the key
problems becomes what to do with the electricity generated.  Feeding
it into the local rural electrification grid isn't going to work
because it can't handle very much juice, and the big power lines to
get power from farms to cities are also not there.

Enter hydrogen as a form for shipping out the power.  How nice if
there were also cars wanting it.

Transportation from windmills does raise questions, but those
questions are not altogether different from how to distribute hydrogen
to neighborhood filling stations.

-kb, the Kent who doesn't know if it would all work, but who does
think it is worth considering.

********

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 06:42:50 -0300
From: Fernando Cassia <fcassia () compuserve com>
To: declan () well com, politech () politechbot com
Subject: Re: FC: Are Feds wasting tax money on hydrogen full cell technology?

Interesting, specially since I just saw a documentary by the BBC about the
hydrogen car trials in europe, (more specifically in Germany, which, btw, s
WAY ahead of the USA both in technical lead and environmental policy) and
where there are a few hydrogen fuel stations already operating...

The power of the oil and nuclear lobbys in the usa is amazing... at a time
when for example Germany has made the strategic decision to shut down all
their nuclear power plants and replace them with clean power sources, USA VP
Cheney had the nerve to suggest early last year (before the 9/11 tragedy)
that hundreds of nuclear power plants spread all across the usa was the
"solution"  to the energy crisis!!

(He has since backed off since it turns out nuclear power plants are
excellent terrorist targets...)

Just my $0.02

Fernando Cassia
Buenos Aires, Argentina

PS: Every time I read about "big bad government WASTING *our* tax dollars" I
remind everyone that the technology and the first backbone (Arpanet) of the
current internet started as what today they call "government waste" (people
with some brain disease that I call government and public investment-hatred).

********

From: "august west" <augustwest1 () earthlink net>
To: <declan () well com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020111002027.00a6cd10 () mail well com>
Subject: Re: Are Feds wasting tax money on hydrogen full cell technology?
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 10:32:27 -0500

Critics are often quick to judge the situation based on their dislike of the
individual in charge, rather than the facts and possibilities around them.
I'm not a fan of the current administration, but I'm glad they've decided to
look into hydrogen as an alternative fuel source.

What Mr. Bond is missing in his post to the list is that there are many,
many possible ways of obtaining hydrogen.

One possible source is algae, a completely renewable resource:

"Researchers have found a metabolic switch in algae that allows the
primitive plants to produce hydrogen gas - a discovery that could ultimately
result in a vast source of cheap, pollution-free fuel. Hydrogen, which can
be used as a clean-burning fuel in cars and power plants, is virtually
limitless in availability, because it is part of the water molecule. It is a
candidate to become the world's primary fuel in coming decades. But until
now, it was obtainable in quantity only through relatively expensive
extraction procedures involving the electrolysis of water or processing
natural gas."

(the full article can be found here:
http://www.zetatalk.com/energy/tengy14r.htm)

Perhaps Mr. Bond would rather we didn't research alternative fuels, and
instead continue to burn oil? Maybe coal? Because while he's quick to
criticize current research, he's not doing any of his own, nor is he
suggesting any alternatives.

thanks,
John Stotler

********

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 04:36:59 -0700
To: declan () well com
From: shane <shane () riseup net>
Subject: Re: FC: Are Feds wasting tax money on hydrogen full cell
 technology?

Not only was the problem to storing hydrogen discovered years ago but so 
were many solutions like the following from 
http://www.powerball.net/concept/index.shtml

The Powerball Concept . . .

The concept behind Powerball Technologies is to tame energy, (so to speak) 
and to store one powerful element - sodium (or sodium hydride) - in order 
to later get Hydrogen on Demand.
Powerball fuel pelletsTM store and produce hydrogen on demand. Each gallon 
of powerball fuel pellets produces hundreds of gallons of hydrogen upon 
contact with water on an as-needed basis. Powerball fuel pelletsTM offer a 
safe, compact, and inexpensive alternative to the delivery, storage and use 
of compressed or liquid hydrogen for a wide range of applications which 
require a clean source of hydrogen.

Powerball fuel pelletsTM are not an energy source. We will never drill a 
hole in the ground and  discover a large reserve of hydrogen or hydride 
pellets. Instead, fuel  pellets can be used as an efficient energy carrier. 
The hydride pellets can be produced using energy from diverse energy 
sources all over the world such as biomass, natural gas, wind energy, 
hydroelectric power, and solar energy. Because they are safe and energy 
dense they can be distributed to buses, boats, houses, and hydrogen users 
by rail, sea, or highway.  Powerball fuel pelletsTM offer new options for 
the distribution of energy that do not rely on oil pipelines or electricity 
transmission lines. Even a disruption in a natural gas pipeline, for 
instance, would not preclude the distribution of powerball fuel pelletsTM 
via trucks, trains or ships to where energy is needed.
Additionally, when powerballs are used to provide hydrogen to vehicles or 
stationary applications there are no point-of-use hydrocarbon emissions or 
carbon oxide emissions. When powerballs are transferred from one tank into 
another tank, there are also zero emissions. Therefore, powerball fuel 
pelletsTM are a responsible and environmentally friendly energy carrier.

********

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:16:23 -0500
From: Nick Bretagna <onemug () gdn net>
Reply-To: afn41391 () afn org
To: declan () well com
CC: stbond () citynet net
Subject: Re: FC: Are Feds wasting tax money on hydrogen full cell technology?

Declan McCullagh wrote:
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 22:32:25 -0500
> From: Steven Thomas Bond <stbond () citynet net>
> To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
> Subject: fuel cell cars
>
> Actually this is as big a scandal from a scientific standpoint as any
> you handle regularly:
> <snip>
Notes:

I didn't read the article he refers to, only his refutation. He appears, 
however, to be refuting fuel cell utility as a whole, not merely the 
automotive application suggested by the subject.

I don't have a Ph.D, but I have an above-average background in 
college-level physics (i.e., well beyond introductory classes).

I have no particular love for so-called "natural" or "renewable" systems. I 
have yet to see any total-power concept except for solar satellites and 
ocean thermal that I consider at this point to be even worth considering 
(and that does not mean those are close, either) for any but the most 
specific of cases.

I also have no vested interest in fuel cells, by either job, training, or 
investments.

-------------------------------------------------

He disputes the use of hydrogen, because there are no natural sources. This 
is obvious. It's been obvious from day one. Yet venture capital investment 
companies (usually run by some shrewd cookies) pour money into the 
technology, despite it. Perhaps this is not relevant, for the perceived 
uses? They can't all be going after government grants. --- You might fool 
the pols and the reporters, but so many *investors*?


As a "power system" (actually, as a storage mechanism),  it may conceivably 
solve some of the other extremely weak points of "natural/renewable" fuel 
sources -- in short, it can act as a storage mechanism for solar (and I 
suppose wind systems), which otherwise require use of power exactly when/as 
generated, which is one of their most critical shortcomings. Anybody with a 
brain knows batteries just don't cut it. I'm no fan of solar/wind sources, 
but to suggest it is a total boondoggle IF YOU HAVE A SUITABLE STORAGE 
MECHANISM, is debatable. Together with these systems (I am aware of no 
study, and certainly Mr. Bond provides no related refutation) fuel cells 
may well offer value.

We are primarily interested in total-cycle efficiency (particularly the 
cost of production for "natural" systems, including solar cells and fuel 
cells combined,  vs. far-from-negligible transmission losses in centralized 
systems and cost of powerplant, over the life cycle of each).

Certainly, for example, a car might have a solar-cell system over part of 
its area, and create at least *some* of its own fuel, lessening the need to 
charge/convert *all* of  the hydrogen used from centralized power sources. 
A 10% or 20% rate may well pay for itself, given the number of miles driven 
by Americans, to say nothing of the developing world.

It might not even require the car itself have the solar power system (and 
possibly better for it not to). The car may well simply pull up to a 
parking space and be plugged in while the owner is at work. This eliminates 
the weight problem of the cells, plus the expense of transporting gasoline 
or its effective equivalent to a distribution location, plus the problem of 
"aiming" towards the sun. There are plenty of factories/large office 
buildings/parking garages (with extensive roof areas and external surfaces) 
which might be able to justify this, if it would cut down on their 
purchased power by allowing them to use solar energy AS NEEDED rather than 
only when the sun shines, especially if the employees supplemented the 
expense by buying a percentage of the production in lieu of 
gasoline-equivalence.

How about a downtown parking garage that charged up the cells of a car 
parked in it?

I'd also wonder about how these systems might well extend the utility of, 
say,  the Segway by extending its range and/or speed -- if only by 
providing the option of varying the size of the hydrogen tank to fit the 
purpose. This is clearly a semi-automotive function, especially as Kamen 
suggests it for the developing world.

Further, there's another issue Mr. Bond blithely ignores -- the fact that 
it is better to run large-scale generators consistently and keep the power 
demand balanced. By running generators at slow times, and creating hydrogen 
(directly at the power plant itself, perhaps, for off site sale, 
eliminating or reducing the 40% to 60% transmission losses), you may well 
be able to justify this, as that hydrogen could then be used to reduce 
demand at peak load times, either directly (by feeding back into the 
systems for a double hit) or, more importantly, by transport to various 
locations, like large-users, who could use less transmitted power on 
request when peaks occur. This is largely a matter of the efficency of the 
fuel-cell systems themselves.

In short, centralized power plants could run at a far more consistent level 
at all times.

It might also save on the need to build co-generation plants, by replacing 
some applications with delivered hydrogen. Alternately, perhaps more 
co-generation plants, to produce the hydrogen, may well be applicable.



I repeat my point: the key factor here, and the one Mr. Bond pretty much 
avoids, is that total-cycle efficiency (cost of ALL equipment, cost of 
production/generation, cost of transmission, for any given system of 
providing a kilowatt-hour of power where it is needed, for the life cycle 
of the given devices) is what is *important*, and while the issues he 
raises effect that, they do not describe the whole of it by a very, very 
long shot.

I do not suggest he is unquestionably wrong, only that his missive shows he 
may well be overly focused on a small part of the picture, and almost 
certainly he is being disingenuous by suggesting that his issues are even 
remotely enough, by themselves, to dispute the effectiveness and utility of 
fuel cell systems -- either for an automotive or general power standpoint.

They are but a component part of a complex mix of power-supply solutions, 
and probably less a means of "power production" than one of "power storage 
and transport".

--
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Nicholas Bretagna II
<mailto:afn41391 () afn org>mailto:afn41391 () afn org

********

From: "777" <777 () io com>
To: "Declan@Well. Com" <declan () well com>
Subject: RE: Are Feds wasting tax money on hydrogen full cell technology?
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:29:59 -0500

Oh, I see... because a technology if difficult (hydrogen power or fusion) we
should not pursue it. Right? That seems to be what he is saying. And his
parting comment indicated that we should be seeking help from God rather
than science. Yes, and the next time I am deathly ill I will not seek out
the doctors and their scientific cures... but rather I will ask God to heal
me. And if he doesn't and I die then it was just God's will.

Well, I have to go prepare the horse and buggy for my commute to work now.

BTW: BMW already has a hydrogen powered car. It's a 7 series they call the
750h. Guess it's not that hard.

Mark Pelts
777 () io com

********

From: "Micha Schellingerhout" <m.schellingerhout () planet nl>
To: <declan () well com>
References: <5.1.0.14.0.20020111002027.00a6cd10 () mail well com>
Subject: Re: Are Feds wasting tax money on hydrogen full cell technology?
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 21:20:12 +0100

Declan,

Absolutely not a hydrogen expert, but the post reminded me of an article I
saw on the BBC site. Got any members in Iceland?

Best,

Micha


By environment correspondent Tim Hirsch
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1727000/1727312.stm

In 1874 the science fiction writer Jules Verne envisaged a world in which
water would replace coal as the fuel of the future.
Now the Icelanders believe they can turn that dream into reality within a
generation - and they are taking the first steps next year in their project
to create the world's first hydrogen society.
Iceland has already gone further than any other country in exploiting its
abundant sources of renewable energy. Virtually all of its electricity and
heating comes from hydroelectric power and the geo-thermal water reserves
tapped from the hot rock layers lying just beneath the surface of this
extraordinary island.
But with no fossil fuel resources of its own, the country relies on imported
oil to power all its cars, buses and fishing trawlers, which provide 70% of
its income.
Fuel cell key
Despite its natural advantages, the tiny population (around 270,000 people
living in an area the size of Britain) produces more greenhouse gas
emissions per head than any other country.

********




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------