Publication date: 22-December-2003 
Source: Reed Business Information

The problems we face are well known. Burning fossil fuels is giving the planet a fever, cities are choking on fumes and Middle Eastern countries are soon going to be the only ones with any oil left. New Scientist reported this summer that, by many estimates, oil production could peak within a decade.

Transport is the biggest concern. While electricity can be generated from other sources, we depend almost entirely on the black stuff for getting from A to B. In the European Union, transport accounts for 67 per cent of oil imports and the amount of oil needed is set to skyrocket by the end of the decade. The EU predicts a 50 per cent growth in road traffic and a 90 per cent increase in air traffic by 2010. The picture is similar in the US.

So the timing has never been better for the hydrogen gurus and their vision of an environmentally friendly, egalitarian future. If power is generated by local renewable sources such as solar panels or wind farms, using hydrogen as an energy carrier moves us away from big, centralised power plants towards small, local generators. Decentralised power generation would allow developing countries control over their own energy, so we'd never again have to fight a war over oil.

It's a seductive idea, and this summer it seemed closer than ever. I went to Brussels to hear Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission, unveil an ambitious plan to wean the continent off oil. The $2-billion package over five years is intended to drag hydrogen technologies such as fuel cells closer to large-scale commercial viability (a further $2.8 billion followed in November). Prodi pledged that by 2050 Europe's hydrogen supply would be based on renewable sources. Even Spencer Abraham, the US energy secretary, was there making supportive noises, having just pledged $1.7 billion of his own country's money towards developing hydrogen-fuelled cars. Prodi's speech sent a clear political message that Europe's energy priorities are about to shift radically. But reaction was mixed - many thought the 2050 target ambitious at best.

This is where we come down to earth. In the US, the energy to make hydrogen is likely to come from nuclear power and coal. So while this means less reliance on the unstable Middle East, the environmental costs could be huge. The second half of the year saw a steady trickle of papers outlining the potential environmental dangers of hydrogen. Getting it from the wrong sources could end up being worse for the planet than burning fossil fuels the way we do now. And too much gas leaking into the atmosphere could harm the ozone layer and even contribute to global warming.

But if this means that hydrogen is becoming less of a belief system and more of a science, that can only be good news. It's not clear yet how big the problems are likely to be, but if we are to head them off early, developing hydrogen technologies must go hand in hand with research into their downsides.