Fuel Cells: Energy Source of the Future

This article claims how fuel cells can eventually be the world’s leading source of energy. It gives a quick overview of how these cells work then explains how this could be the perfect source of energy in the future. It even mentions that these fuel cells are emission free or cause very little emissions, which may be harmful to the environment. This argument is a bold claim to make with a lot of “maybes” and more problems than solutions in place today. The author mentions that “...experts say...” (National Geographic 2010) but does not give any information on these so called experts or their credibility. There are many other sources of clean energy that have been tested, work and are being used today on a growing scale. Why would people replace these already working ideas with fuel cells if they are not practical yet? The author mentions that these fuels cells are currently too expensive to produce and therefore would not work economically at this time. If this is the case then how could fuel cells work economically in the future?

The author of this article does not quote anyone, or any published work specifically, he merely says that the “...experts say...” (National Geographic 2010). Who are these experts and why should anyone reading this article believe what they say. This is a key point in making the authors argument, on fuel cells being the energy source of the future, a weak argument. An argument or even a claim of anything should have back up information, or at the very least sources of back up information. This makes their point more credible, which provides a stronger argument as it is harder to argue against several sources that say similar things. The author needs to provide sources of where his information came from so the credibility of his statements can be determined. This makes his whole article semi-plausible at best. To be plausible there should be several peer reviewed studies conducted and cited properly so someone who wants to know what sciences says, and not the authors opinion of the results, can find the information they are looking. This allows people to make their own assessments of what the future of energy sources will be.

The author did not address all the competing factors in why fuel cells are not currently a large source of the world’s energy. The main competing factor is the current sources of energy. Fuel cells are mainly popular because they do not produce any emissions that may be harmful to the environment. The author didn’t mention that there are already sources of energy that provide this same benefit, that are already working, very efficient and have even more potential for the future. By not addressing that there are already clean sources of energy and why this source might possibly be better it will leave the reader with questions in their head about why this energy source is so much better than one that is known to work. By leaving any questions unanswered you create a weak argument, and even more room for people to argue against your idea. To fix this the author should have mentioned sources like solar, wind, hydro, and geothermal energies and why they will not be the energy source of the future. Maybe they will coexist as sources of energy in the future and no one source will dominate. Those previously mentioned sources are currently being used by people around the world to provide clean energy, why would these people use a new not proven product that isn’t practical? How can this product even come close to being seen as the energy source of the future when there are several good sources already? These types of questions leave me unconvinced that fuel cells might even be considered as an energy source in the future, leaving me to think that the author did not provide a very good argument.

The author did mention that the only reason that we do not currently use fuel cells as an energy source is because they are too expensive and would not work economically. What the author fails to provide an answer for is why, if they do not work economically now, will they work in the future? Again by not addressing this point the author’s argument becomes weaker. They are leaving the reader with more questions on the practicality of fuel cells. For a good argument the reader should not have any questions and should have an answer for any counter-argument.

This article did not make a very good argument that fuel cells will be the energy of the future. They left out several key points which left the reader questioning the credibility and solidity of the argument. By leaving out sources and references then the credibility is questionable and the argument becomes weak against any counter-argument with a provided source to proof of their point. The author also did not address all the problems stopping fuel cells from being the dominant energy source now, and the arguments that were addressed were not followed up with answers as to why they won’t be a problem in the future. By leaving questions unanswered the argument becomes incomplete and leaves plenty of room for a counter argument to disprove the original argument.

References

Fuel Cells: Energy Source of the Future.” National Geographic. February, 2009.