Untitled Document
The United States imports approximately
one third of its energy sources, mostly in the form of petroleum.
1 Heightened interest in finding alternative fuels, and
thus reducing the U.S. reliance on imported oil, was reflected
in the 2005 Energy Policy Act.2 However, in some
cases, the production of alternative fuels may itself require
a substantial amount of energy—to the extent that more
energy is required to make an alternative fuel than the
alternative fuel yields. A relatively simple example of this is
the derivation of hydrogen fuel by electrolysis of water
(though hydrogen can also be produced from other
sources). Because the hydrogen is converted back into
water (typically, water vapor), basic thermodynamics dictates
that the overall result of this cycle—that is, the conversion
of water to water vapor—is to consume energy, not produce
it. The net energy produced—or “energy balance”—
is negative; if, for example, fossil fuels were used to conduct
the electrolysis, production of hydrogen in this manner
would actually increase, rather than decrease, the demand
for fossil fuels.
But negative energy balances should
not necessarily disqualify a technology. In
the above example, solar power could conceivably
be used to conduct the electrolysis.
Although the amount of energy in the hydrogen would still be less than the
amount of solar energy required to make
the hydrogen, the overall effect would be
to reduce petroleum fuel demand. However,
the real alternative source of energy in this system would be the solar power,
not the hydrogen.
Clearly, when considering alternative
fuel options, policy-makers would like to
know the energy balances associated with
those options to better understand the
degree to which options are truly alternative
sources of energy, or simply alternative
fuels that result in more energy demand
(even if that energy can be produced from
nonpetroleum sources). Unfortunately,
calculations of energy balances are often
more complex than in the hydrogen-fromwater
example, and there can be large disagreements
with regard to what the correct
energy balance is. The purpose of this
article is to identify key questions that are
pertinent to resolving energy balance disagreements
between different analysts, but
are also pertinent to analyses of costs,
environmental impacts, and other factors.

MOST POPULAR RELATED SEARCHES