NYT’s Nicholas Kristof gives the common liberal assessment of hyrogen-fuel-cell cars: that they are the solution to our energy dependency. Unfortunately, the picture is more complicated. Two recent pieces (in the Economist and the New Republic) point out the major problem with the plan: that energy is required to create hydrogen feul. At best the cars will bring the benefit of cleaner air in urban centers at the cost of pollution elsewhere or a chance to emphasize non-petroleum energy production (nuclear power, likely, and better use of hydroelectric - both of which carry their own environmental drawbacks of course). Furthermore, the logistics of transporting and stocking hydrogen fuel bring their own hazards and obstacles. I’m not saying these obstacles are ultimately insurmountable or unworthy of our resources, but we should be aware that hydrogen fuel won’t solve difficult choices for environmental and cost-benefit tradeoffs, but will merely shift them.
No comments have been added to this post yet.