Introduction
As the energy crisis intensifies, a myriad of technical solutions are being proposed. Most were investigated in depth during the first two energy crisis of the 1970s. There is a wealth of information available from that period. Nor did research stop in the ensuing 25 years. A serious societal problem is the lack of understanding of the options, their history and their limitations. History gives a sense of the possible speed and cost of implementation, as well as the limits of the technologies themselves. Governments, corporations and scientists are not offering new creative solutions, not because they are failing to make strong efforts, but because energy itself is a very mature industry.
Finding a New Source of Energy
It is frequently stated in the press that “we must find a new source of energy,” preferably one that is both clean and inexhaustible. Although this seems to be a reasonable statement it is somewhat equivalent to saying that we must find a new species of animal, or a new planet, or a new continent. This context may appear trivial but is it no more likely that we will find some new mineral that will provide the volumes of energy which have been available for consumption from burning fossil fuels. Minerals exist in the earth and water and new ones were continually found for several centuries. But like species and planets, there are a fixed number of them.
It is useful to review the discovery history of the basic elements of our planet. Reviewing the Periodic Table of Elements, it appears that 12 elements were known since ancient times. The number of elements discovered every 50 years is:
1650 to 1699 – 1
1700 to 1749 – 3
1750 to 1799 – 15
1800 to 1849 – 25
1850 to 1899 – 24
1900 to 1949 – 14
1950 to 1999 – 16.
But this does not tell the whole story. The web site www.chemicalelements.com shows that 20 of the 30 discovered in the 20th century are man made. Of the remaining six most include descriptions that require complex manufacturing processes. The vast majority of the 20th century discoveries were from nuclear research and the use of high speed particle accelerators of various types. Many of these elements only exist for a fraction of a second. Some of these man made elements (rutherfordium, dubnium, seaborgium, bohrium, meitnerium, ununnilium, unununium, neptunium, plutonium, americium, curium, berkelium, californium, einsteinium, fermium, mendelevium, nobelium, lawrencium) include those of which only a few atoms were ever made and, if used, they are created in quantities of a few grams per year. A few are made from exotic materials such as hafnium (from zircon), rhenium (from gadolinite and molybdenite), francium (from decay of actinium), ununbium (from fusion of zinc and lead), neodymium (from electrolysis of salts), promethium (from fission products of uranium, thorium, and plutonium), lutetium (from gadolinite, xenotime), protactinium (from fission products of uranium, thorium, plutonium). Although most last only a few seconds or minutes, one – plutonium (possibly the most deadly material known to man) – will last centuries.
Have there been any fundamental new elements (other than those man made in nuclear processes) discovered in the past 100 years or, like plants, animals, planets and continents, is the age of material discovery long past? A review of the basic elements history leads to the conclusion that the discovery age is definitely past. Thus the hope that we can discover new elements that could be sources of power is as naïve as assuming we can discover new continents to resolve the population crowding on the existing ones. Discovering a new source of energy means discovery something other than the wind and sunlight of ancient history, the fossil fuels of the last three centuries or the nuclear power development that began in the 1940s based on the discovery of uranium in 1789. It is foolish to assume this can happen, particularly since the number of discoveries of elements, other than the temporary man made ones, is inversely proportional to the amount of money spent on scientific research in recent times.
The Solar Photovoltaic Option – a brief history
It is also useful to also review the history of the main options being proposed as replacements to fossil fuels. The following section is excerpted from pvresources.com, an independent web site devoted to promote photovoltaic applications and technologies. (http://www.pvresources.com/en/history.php) (accessed 11/23/2004)
“In 1839 the French physicist A. E. Becquerel discovered that conductance rises with illumination. Willoughby Smith discovered the photovoltaic effect in selenium in 1873. In 1876, William Adams discovered that illuminating a junction between selenium and platinum has a photovoltaic effect. These last two discoveries were the foundation for the first selenium solar cell construction, which was built in 1877. Albert Einstein, provided the most comprehensive theoretical work about the photovoltaic effect in 1904, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1921. In 1918, Polish scientist Czohralski discovered a method for monocrystalline silicon production, enabling monocrystalline solar cells production. The first silicon monocrystalline solar cell was constructed in 1941. In 1932, the photovoltaic effect in cadmium-selenide was observed, an important material for solar cells production.
In 1954, the RCA Laboratories published a report on CdS photovoltaic effect. AT&T Bell’s Laboratories designed a solar cell with 4.5 % efficiency. In 1957, Hoffman Electronics introduced a solar cell with 8 % efficiency. In 1958 the first satellite powered by solar cells, Vanguard I, was launched. In 1960, Hoffman Electronics introduced yet another solar cell with 14 % efficiency.
A United Nation’s conference on solar energy application in developing countries took place in 1961. In 1962, the first commercial telecommunications satellite Telstar, developed by Bell Laboratories, was launched using a photovoltaic system for power. In 1963, Sharp Corporation developed the first usable photovoltaic module from silicon solar cells.
In 1970, Solar Power Corporation was established for applications of photovoltaic technologies on Earth. In 1973, Solarex Corporation was established. In 1974, the Japanese Sunshine project commenced. In 1975, Solec International and Solar Technology International were established. The American government encouraged JPL Laboratories research in the field of photovoltaic systems for application on Earth in the same year.
In 1977, the world production of photovoltaic modules exceeded 500 kW. In 1979, ARCO Solar built the biggest solar cells and photovoltaic systems production plant. In 1980 ARCO Solar was the first to produce photovoltaic modules with peak power of over 1 MW per year and built a 105.6 kW system in Utah.
The world production of photovoltaic modules was 9.3 MW in 1982. In 1983, the world production of photovoltaic modules was 21.3 MW peak power. In that year the Solar Trek vehicle with photovoltaic system of 1 kW drove 4,000 km in twenty days in an Australia race. ARCO Solar built a 6 MW photovoltaic power plant as a subsystem of the public electricity grid for Pacific Gas and Electric Company in California. In 1984, a 1 MW photovoltaic power plant was completed in Sacramento, California. Shortly after, ARCO Solar introduced the first amorphous modules and BP Solar Systems built a 30 kW photovoltaic system connected to public electric grid nearby Southampton, Great Britain.
In 1990, Energy Conversion Devices Inc. (ECD) and Canon Inc. established a joint company, United Solar Systems Corporation, for solar cells production. In the same year Siemens bought ARCO Solar and established Siemens Solar Industries, which is nowadays one of the biggest photovoltaic companies in the world. In 1991, BP Solar Systems was renamed to be BP Solar International (BPSI), and became an independent unit within British Petroleum. In 1994, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL), an important institution in the field of renewable energy sources in USA, launched its web site on the Internet. In the same year ASE GmbH from Germany purchased Mobil Solar Energy Corporation technology and established ASE Americas, Inc.
In the period 2002 – 2003 several large power plants were built in Germany. On April 29th 2003 the world’s largest photovoltaic plant was connected to the public grid in Hemau near Regensburg (Bavaria), Germany. The peak power of the “Solarpark Hemau” plant is 4 MW.”
End of excerpt
Commentary on the Solar Option
Solar power is not at all new concept. It does not represent a new dynamic and technically innovative industry. Progress has been decades in the making. Costs have dropped significantly, but at a far slower rate than comparable technologies that existed in the same time period such as computers chips and cell phones. The solar cell is almost a century old in concept and half a century in implementation. There is little reason to expect a dramatic improvement or cost reductions of the nature seen in electronic products.
The Wind Turbine Option – a brief history
The following is excerpted from Telosnet, a Colorado web site which includes a focus on alternative energy, http://telosnet.com/wind/20th.html (accessed 11/23/04) and a Danish Wind History Site, and http://www.vindhistorie.dk/English.htm (accessed 11/23/2004). Wind turbines are more successful and have been deployed in much larger numbers than solar PV systems; thus their history is more detailed.
U.S. Wind Power History
The first use of a large windmill to generate electricity in the U.S. was a system built in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1888 by Charles F. Brush. It was the first windmill to incorporate a step-up gearbox (with a ratio of 50:1) in order to turn a direct current generator at its required operational speed (in this case, 500 RPM.)
In 1891, a Danish scientist, Poul La Cour, developed the first electrical output wind machine to incorporate the aerodynamic design principles (low-solidity, four-bladed rotors incorporating primitive airfoil shapes) used in the best European tower mills. By the close of World War I, 25 kilowatt electrical output machines were used throughout Denmark.
The first small electrical-output wind turbines used modified propellers to drive direct current generators. By the mid-1920’s, 1 to 3-kilowatt wind generators developed by companies like Parris-Dunn and Jacobs Wind-electric found widespread use in the rural areas of the Midwest. These systems were installed at first to provide lighting for farms and to charge batteries used to power crystal radio sets. But their use was extended to an entire array of direct-current motor-driven appliances, including refrigerators, freezers, washing machines, and power tools.
While the market for new small wind machines of any type had been largely eroded in the United States by 1950, the use of mechanical and electrical systems continued throughout Europe and in windy, arid climates such as those found in parts of Africa and Australia.
The development of bulk-power, utility-scale wind energy conversion systems was first undertaken in Russia in 1931 with the 100kW Balaclava wind generator. This machine operated for about two years on the shore of the Caspian Sea, generating 200,000 kWh of electricity. Subsequent experimental wind plants in the United States, Denmark, France, Germany, and Great Britain during the period 1935-1970 showed that large-scale wind turbines would work, but failed to result in a practical large electrical wind turbine.
In Denmark, the 200 kW Gedser Mill wind turbine operated successfully until the early 1960s, when declining fossil-fuel prices once again made wind energy uncompetitive with steam-powered generating plants. This machine featured a three-bladed upwind rotor with fixed pitch blades that used mechanical windmill technology augmented with an airframe support structure. The design was not that far removed from Poul La Cour’s final 1920-era windmill design.
Post war activity in Denmark and Germany largely dictated the two major horizontal-axis design approaches that would emerge when attention returned to wind turbine development in the early 1970s. The Danes refined the simple, fixed pitch, Gedser Mill design, utilizing advanced materials, improved aerodynamic design, and aerodynamic controls to reduce some of its shortcomings. The engineering innovations of the light-weight, higher efficiency German machines, such as a teeter hinge at the rotor hub, were used later by U.S. designers.
U.S. Government Contributions to Wind Energy Development
The U.S. federal government’s involvement in wind energy research and development began within two years of the “Arab Oil Crisis” of 1973. Federal research and development activities resulted in the design, fabrication, and testing of 13 different small wind turbine designs (ranging from 1kW to 40kW), five large (100kW – 3.2MW) horizontal-axis turbine (HAWT) designs, and several vertical axis (VAWT) designs ranging from 5 to over 500 kW.
Most of the funding was allocated to the development of multi-megawatt turbines, in the belief that U.S. utilities would not consider wind power to be a serious power source unless large, megawatt-scale “utility-scale” systems were available. The development of 1+ megawatt giants in Europe) have shown that this view was fundamentally correct.
In 1981, the biggest successes of the federal program were not measured in hardware, but in the number of designs shown to be unfeasible and in the amount of expertise developed in both the federal programs and in their private industry subcontractors.
In the subsequent seven years between 1981 and 1988 — despite hundreds of millions of federal tax credits — only four new wind turbine designs were developed in the U.S. All but one (the Bergey 10kW) were based on spin-offs of technology developed by companies supported by the previous federal development effort. And even the Bergey relied for its flexible blades on a pultrusion manufacturing technique developed under government sponsorship.
During the years 1973-1986, the commercial wind turbine market evolved from domestic and agricultural applications of small machines in the 1 to 25 kilowatt size range to utility interconnected wind farm applications of intermediate-scale machines of 50 to 600 kilowatts. Wind farms in California made up the majority of wind turbine installations until the early 1990s. In California, over 17,000 machines, ranging in output from 20 to 350 kilowatts, were installed in wind farms between 1981 and 1990. At the height of development, these turbines had a collected rating of over 1,700 megawatts and produced over 3 million megawatt hours of electricity, enough (at peak output) to power a city of 300,000. Among the key economic factors were the federal energy credit of 15%, a 10% federal investment credit, and a 50% California state energy credit. These, together with attractive rates offered by utilities for power produced by alternative sources (mandated by state regulations), were packaged into an attractive investment product by private financial firms and investment houses.
Danish Contributions
By 1982, it was obvious to most observers that the U.S. wind farm market would soon be dominated by the Danish turbine manufacturers. In contrast to American companies, Danish firms offered three-bladed upwind machines derived from the Gedser mill design, a primitive and inefficient, but relatively well-understood configuration, modernized with the addition of fiberglass blades. These machines were certified from the Danish test center at Riso and included statistics that showed their designs were more reliable (in terms of availability for energy production) than their U.S. counterparts. By 1986, the Danes had captured 50% of the U.S. wind farm market. However, quality and long term reliability were low.
The U.S. wind farm market demand for intermediate-size wind machines continued despite the end of the federal energy credits in 1984 and the phase out of the California state credits shortly thereafter. Artificially high buyback rates continued into the 1990’s, when many machines had long since been paid off.
There were many apparent success stories. For example, U.S. Windpower (after re-engineering their early units) manufactured and operated over 4100 100-kilowatt wind turbines in Northern California. And several large U.S. wind energy utilities operated turbines of Danish, Dutch, German, Japanese, English, Irish, and U.S. origin in a profitable fashion all during the 1980s – supported ed by attractive “buy-back” rates for power in California.
U.S. Small Wind Machines
A small machine development effort was belatedly started in 1976, when a federal test center established at Rocky Flats, Colorado found that available machines were neither properly-sized, nor reliable enough, to do the jobs envisioned by federal application studies. Within four years, 13 wind turbine designs in five application-based size-ranges were procured, designed, fabricated, and tested:
1-2 kW High Reliability
4kW Small Residential
8 & 15 kW Residential and Commercial
40kW Business and Agricultural
Successes of this program included 1-3kW and 6kW small turbines commercialized by Northern Power Systems and still being sold for remote power uses, and a three-bladed 40-60kW machine installed by the hundreds in California wind farms by Enertech.
Sales of small wind turbines have been slow, but sufficient to provide business for several manufacturers of wind turbines designed for water pumping and remote installations. In general, however, the U.S. market lagged and gradually declined during the 1980’s and into the 1990s.
The World Wind Power Market
In northern Europe and Asia wind turbine installations increased steadily through the 1980s and 90s and into the 2000s. The higher cost of electricity and excellent wind resources in northern Europe created a small, but stable, market for single, cooperative-owned wind turbines and small clusters of machines. After 1990, most market activity shifted to Europe and Asia. Driven by high utility power purchase rates, the installation of 50-kW, then 100-kW, then 200-kW, then 500-kW and now 1.5 (and larger) megawatt wind turbines by cooperatives and private landowners in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany has been particularly impressive. This wind interest has helped support a thriving private wind turbine development and manufacturing industry.
A large international market has long been predicted for small village power or “wind-hybrid” installations. Despite some promising pilot projects, the apparent interest of many countries and of many nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and significant commitments from several wind turbine manufacturers and U.S. research laboratories (including Sandia National Laboratories and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory) this market has yet to emerge.
Recent Advances
In the 1990s, the California wind farm market began to be affected by the expiration or forced re-negotiation of attractive power purchase contracts with the major California utilities: Southern California Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric. U.S. wind energy development resumed in 1999, with a much broader geographical base. A variety of new wind projects were installed in the U.S. in the late ’90s and early 2000s.
The cost of energy from larger electrical output wind turbines used in utility-interconnected or wind farm applications has dropped from more than $1.00 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) in 1978 to under $0.05 per kWh in 2004. The hardware costs of these wind turbines have dropped below $800 per installed kilowatt in the past five years. Cost per kilowatt hour figures of $0.04 or less are now commonly projected for advanced U.S. wind turbines in 17 mph or better wind regimes, where capacity factors of over 0.40 can be achieved. Costs of smaller systems vary widely, with installed costs from $2000 to $3000 per installed kilowatt. Energy costs for small turbines of $0.12 to $0.20 per kWh are still the norm in the U.S. market.”
End of excerpt
Future Projections
In the future, wind energy may be the most cost effective source of electrical power. The eventual depletion of fossil fuel energy sources will entail rapid escalations in price. The major technology developments enabling wind power commercialization have already been made, although there will be infinite refinements and improvements.
Danish Wind Power and Hydrogen
Denmark has been a leader in windmills of all kinds for centuries. In the late 1800s, systematic and scientific tests of wind turbines were conducted at the Askov Folk High School in Southern Jutland in Denmark by the meteorologist and teacher Poul la Cour. His work was revolutionary for understanding the aerodynamic conditions of wind turbine blades.
He performed experiments with blade models in a wind tunnel as early as 1896-99. La Cour worked with the windmill-manufacturers of the time to develop the “ideal turbine”. His work was supported by the Danish government. He built two test turbines, the first one in 1891 and the second in 1897.
His most significant work was his experiments with electrolysis of water to hydrogen and oxygen where the hydrogen was used for lighting at the school. As we speak of a new “hydrogen economy” it is important to remember that hydrogen was being generated by electrolysis from wind turbines and used in a practical application over a century. In 1902 La Cour started educating electricians to erect and operate rural wind power plants. By 1908, there were 30 rural power plants with operating wind turbines.
Wind Electrical Power Summary
Like solar photovoltaics, wind generation of electricity has a long history. Billions of dollars of investment have been made. The wind turbine industry has reached a level of maturity so that its costs can be projected. Furthermore, enough installations have been made on a world wide basis to accurately measure wind availability and the effectiveness of various wind speeds.
Wind power has a major disadvantage in that wind is intermittent and thus cannot be counted on to produce a constant level of electricity. The term that describes the variable nature of wind used in the electricity generating industry is dispatchability; that is, wind electricity cannot be dispatched with the same consistency of a coal or natural gas powered turbine. Wind turbines require back up fossil fuel plants which must always be running so that they can be cut in quickly if wind speeds decline. As a result, wind experts suggest that wind electricity can never completely replace fossil fuel plants to meet the world’s electricity needs.
Wind electricity and hydrogen
As previously noted, wind turbines were generating electricity which was being used to make hydrogen from water using electrolysis 100 years ago. An astute observer might legitimately be concerned that the future of wind energy is based on old technology. This concern is legitimate and should be understood in terms of the earlier thesis of this paper, which is that the technology that deals with sources of energy has reached a point such that it will be unlikely that major improvements will be made in the years to come. This does not imply no improvements. Other mature technologies, such as passenger jets, show consistent improvement in performance (about 1% a year in efficiency). But in no way do they compare with the improvements and prices available in electronics.
Because the characteristics of wind turbine electricity generation is well known, as well as the manufacturing of hydrogen by electricity from wind turbines, it is not difficult to establish a storage system for wind based on hydrogen. Although this has been discussed for decades, there has been little effort to model a system. Ulf Bossel (1) has examined the risks and costs of a wind turbine/hydrogen system in various papers. Ted Trainer (2) has provided a model of wind turbine/hydrogen systems for Australia as well as the United States. Both note the impracticality of basing an energy strategy on a solar or wind based hydrogen system.
These practical analyses bring a balance to the almost hysterical reference to the so called “Hydrogen Economy”, a way of life of supposedly infinite clean renewable energy. Certainly hydrogen can be generated from wind driven electricity and there is no doubt that hydrogen can be shipped through a pipeline; these functions have been around for decades. Nor is there any doubt that hydrogen can be burned in an internal combustion engine. The first hydrogen automobile that burned hydrogen in a conventional internal combustion engine was demonstrated by a 22 year old college student in 1972. And a fuel cell driven tractor (developed by Harry Ihrig of Allis-Chalmers) was demonstrated in 1961.
These examples illustrate the maturity of the technology. More complex examples are available. Both the U.S. and Russia have flown airplanes short distances using hydrogen fuel. Why then have we not simply converted the world to hydrogen powered by wind turbines and solar cells decades ago? One answer is that these technologies show no promise of being able to provide energy in an amount at all comparable to that of fossil fuels. The technologies are not complex and their possible ranges of improvements are fairly well proscribed. It’s simply clear to scientists that there are limitations. More research money will not change the situation just as more research money will not find new mineral elements or continents. Of course, some scientists are quick to claim the opposite since often their incomes are derived from government and industry funding and funding is in short supply for those pointing out possible limits.
Summary
It is vital that we understand the limits of technology. Although science has provided an amazing variety of new products, it has also shown the limitations that come with it. And these limitations are not simply a matter of political will but limitations of technology itself or of natural barriers that apparently cannot be overcome. Science is also limited by the problems that science itself causes. Treatment of cancer has progressed significantly since Nixon declared a ‘War” on cancer in the 1970s. But overall cancer has increased rapidly on a worldwide basis. One reason is that while one set of scientists are trying to cure cancer, another set are busily developing new products (mostly based on some version of fossil fuels) that are extremely toxic and which probably cause cancer. Oddly enough the cure for cancer may be to stop certain scientists from continuing their work.
Similarly, scientists have been unable to develop defenses against nuclear missiles. Should other scientists who design the missiles stop their work, then possibly a defense could be built. But offensive weapon scientists seem to outdo defense scientists.
In terms of fossil fuels, one set of scientists have discovered a wide variety of new technologies which allow the extraction of fossil fuels faster and more completely than ever before while those scientists looking for new sources lag far behind.
The probability of a “technofix” becomes less and less probable as time goes by. And, as always happens with technologies that are oversold, unforeseen problems begin to arise, tarnishing the “miracle.” The limitations of wind power, as it becomes more widely distributed, also become more apparent. Two recent papers are examples of this. One paper (3) suggests that wide distribution of wind turbines in the U.S. could cause a temperature increase. The other paper (4) is a summary of the experiences of a major German power company which utilizes wind turbines, pointing out major implementation difficulties. Many writers show that the “hydrogen miracle”, and its “fuel cell” partner, are fading rapidly. Its becoming more apparent that the electric car is a better option than the fuel cell car (5). California’s decision to stop their impressive efforts on electric cars and substitute the fuel cell vehicle looks more and more like a tragedy. And the misleading idea that hydrogen will benefit the environment is now being challenged. (6). Fortunately the popular magazines are no longer following the hydrogen herd but are beginning to articulate the serious problems (7)
Sometime in the 20th century, the Western world became increasingly fixated on technology. World War II is often selected as the point at which technology became something separate from human experience. The post World War II period shows a tremendous growth in per capita fossil fuel consumption that resulted in the deployment of 100s of millions of innovative machines. This technical euphoria continues but Peak Oil illustrates the shaky foundation on which modern technological society is built. Prudence of any kind was rejected. Sustainability as a concept fell into disrepute. Now we must deal with our infatuation. Technology is now looking like something that may well have caused more problems than it has solved.
Western man can continue a few more decades on this path. Worshiping the god of technology has blinded us to the reality of our situation and the huge negative consequences that have come from this intoxication, some of these consequences including degradation of soil, air and water as well as biological diversity. It is vital that we recognize the limitations while there is still time. It is equally vital that we begin to look upon institutional science not as simply the creator of miracles but as representative of a world view that has always argued for technological advance no matter what the cost to planet and people. Wisdom is now needed to overcome the ignorance caused by an almost religious fixation with science and technology.
References:
1. The Hydrogen Illusion, by Ulf Bossel, Cogeneration and On-Site Power Production March–April 2004, http://www.efcf.com/reports/E11.pdf, accessed 12/22/04
2. Renewable Energy; What are the Limits? by Ted Trainer, Faculty of Arts, Univ. of N.S.W., Australia, 4/2004, http://www.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/D74.RENEWABLE-ENERGY.html accessed 12/22/04.
3. “The Influence of Large-scale Wind Power on Global Climate” by David W. Keith, Joseph F. DeCarolis, David C. Denkenberger, Donald H. Lenschow, Sergey L. Malyshev, Stephen Pacala, and Philip J. Rasch; PNAS, November 16, 2004, vol. 101 _ no. 46, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0406930101v1.pdf accessed 12/22/04
4. Wind Report 2004, EON-Netz, Germany http://www.nowhinashwindfarm.co.uk/EON_Netz_Windreport_e_eng.pdf accessed 12/22/04
5. Carrying the Energy Future, Comparing Hydrogen and Electricity for Transmission, Storage and Transportation by Patrick Mazza & Roel Hammerschlag, June 2004 http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlag.pdf accessed 12/22/04
6. Fueling America: How Hydrogen Cars Affect the Environment by William J. Korchinski Project Director: Adrian T. Moore, Reason Public Policy Institute, November 2004, http://www.rppi.org/ps322.pdf, accessed 12/22/04.
7. Warning: The Hydrogen Economy May Be More Distant Than It Appears: Nine myths and misconceptions, and the truth about why hydrogen-powered cars aren’t just around the corner by Michael Behar, Popular Science, http://www.popsci.com/popsci/generaltech/article/0,20967,927469,00.html accessed 12/22/04.
