DR: You're a big supporter of hydrogen, which is a storage medium for electrical energy. Moving our transportation infrastructure to hydrogen means offloading the power burden from oil and liquid fuels to electricity sources -- predominantly natural gas and coal. How is that an environmental gain, to go from oil to coal?
TT: It isn't, but that's a false choice. There are lots of other ways we get hydrogen that are a lot more efficient, cheaper, and more environmentally benign.
Every city that's got a sewage treatment plant vents hydrogen and often methane into the atmosphere. A lot of them are capturing it and burning it as natural gas. That can all be converted to hydrogen through biological processes that cost nothing. And there's a lot of hydrogen in the sewage water they release; they then spend a lot of money and energy, in the case of Los Angeles, for example, to pump that water seven miles offshore. They dump it into the Pacific Ocean. There's enough water dumped from Los Angeles sewage treatment plants alone to power the entire U.S. transportation fleet on hydrogen.
((terry_include))Of course you need the electricity, or some other way of breaking hydrogen out of the water. But we're not short of hydrogen. A lot of it can come from agricultural waste. We're working on cellulosic ethanol -- when you break down cellulose, you can also break out hydrogen from that using biodigest. There's wind power. Hydrogen's a chance to unlock the potential of wind, which right now is only fractionally used because a lot of wind is generated in places at the wrong time of day. But with hydrogen, you can let the wind blow whenever it blows and use that electricity to break the hydrogen out of sewage water or waste product; make the hydrogen go back through a fuel cell during the day for electricity when you need it, or as a transportation fuel.
We have a long way to go to exhaust supplies of clean hydrogen before we would ever have to consider coal. And you can gasify coal -- get the hydrogen directly from the coal. That sets aside the environmental hazard of actually extracting the coal, which is a whole other discussion. I'm not advocating it.
Right now we make 3 trillion cubic feet of hydrogen from natural gas, not from coal -- and that hydrogen is used to strip sulfur from petroleum to make gasoline. It's absurd.
DR: Aren't there other methods for storage that are simpler and easier than hydrogen? Batteries, for instance?
TT: I hadn't had a chance to see Who killed the Electric Car? until the other night, so it's fresh in my mind -- the rather short-hand and bogus argument that's set up between hydrogen and batteries. I'm a big proponent of battery electric. I drove one in Sacramento for the first two years I was up there. As Ed Begley says, they only serve the needs of 90 percent of the American public. They'll make a comeback as gasoline becomes more expensive.
That said, imagine you could flip a switch and everyone was driving a battery electric car tomorrow. Where would all the batteries come from? How much energy would we have to put in to produce them? When they burn out in about five years, which is the useful life for most batteries, and they're about $3,500 a set ... imagine if you had to replace your gasoline engine and transmission for about $3,500 every five years.
And what would you do with all those waste batteries?
It's like the problem with electronic waste -- in the last 20 years, as we've gone into this technological revolution, we're generating tons and tons of e-waste. We never thought about that as we were suddenly going into the computer age. Well, if you could suddenly do that with cars, where would the energy and materials come from to make all the batteries, and then what about the electricity? What about recharging? The grid can barely keep up now.
Yes, you can use even traditional natural gas and coal and nuclear during off-peak hours, which is when most people would probably recharge their cars, at night, but at what cost in emissions? If you've got to recharge all those batteries, you take up what could be transportation fuel or electricity for the rest of the grid; now you make us dependent on fossil fuels for the rest of the grid.
In California, we have one of the most aggressive renewable portfolio standards -- we're aiming to get a third of our electricity from renewables by 2020. That means two-thirds is still going to come from nukes and traditional fossil fuels. If a lot of those renewables are peeled off to make electricity for electric cars, you're going to push demand for more nukes or more coal to continue to power the grid.
The other problem is, for those times when you do drive a long distance -- 200, 300 miles -- a hydrogen car you can stop and refuel in five minutes. But a battery, no matter how efficient you make it, is going to take six or eight hours to recharge. I don't know too many people who, if they're going to drive from San Francisco to Los Angeles, want to stop for 8 hours in the middle of that trip to refuel their car. So it isn't as useful or as flexible as a hydrogen car with a hydrogen fueling infrastructure.
There's no free lunch. I'm not saying that makes the case for hydrogen against battery electric. I'm simply saying that we probably need all of these technologies. If we're going to displace a significant percentage of petroleum in our lifetime, we need the cleanest possible sources used in the most thoughtful way.
DR: Why not choose the existing electrical infrastructure over this speculative new hydrogen infrastructure?
TT: First of all, we don't have the infrastructure, if everyone switched to an electric car tomorrow. We don't have enough transmission and generation stations. We would have to build significantly. Look at blackouts in the northeast. Look at the California energy crisis. Let me tell you, as the cabinet secretary that had to deal with daily energy briefings to the governor: that problem is not over. And it's not over throughout the rest of the country.
We would have to build an entirely new infrastructure if we were going to charge that many vehicles and get that many units of energy for our transportation system. By contrast ...
I really hate this discussion, to be honest -- it's vilifying one at the expense of the other, and my whole message is we've got get all these technologies improved. Collectively, they can displace petroleum. That's the enemy. The enemy is not hydrogen or coal or the electric grid or the electric car or this or that. The enemy, in my view, is petroleum. There's nothing that has caused more damage to our society, to our health, to our politics, to our values as Americans, to every single thing we value in this world than petroleum. Whatever you can name as second is so far behind it's not even worth mentioning.
DR: Coal?
TT: Even coal. I mean, as devastating as mountaintop mining is in Kentucky, and the emissions, we're not in foreign countries killing people and creating entire generations of people who hate us and want to fly airplanes into our buildings over a ton of coal. Anyway, that's a whole separate discussion.
My point about this is, yes, you would have to create a whole new and expensive infrastructure if you were going to start charging all those cars, including the new vehicles. For hydrogen we'd have to make new vehicles, admittedly. But hydrogen stations -- there's already 350 natural gas fueling stations in California, and a pretty robust national network across the country. Every one of those you can make hydrogen. It's a gaseous fuel under pressure, the exact same pump. You can actually make hydrogen from natural gas -- admittedly that's a fossil fuel, but natural gas also comes from landfills and waste materials and sewage. There are renewable sources. So there's already a nascent infrastructure in place.
The American Petroleum Institute came out with an estimate that to build a sufficiently robust fueling network for hydrogen would take about $140 billion nationwide. $140 billion -- is that the amount we spent in Iraq in the first 14 months?
DR: In the last five minutes.
TT: A lot of people disputed that number -- Amory Lovins of Rocky Mountain Institute and others -- but let's assume you go with what the American Petroleum Institute says. We could have paid for that many, many, many times over with what we give in subsidies to the oil industry today, not to mention the cost of the war in Iraq.
Comments
View as Flat
David Roberts Posted 4:43 am
11 Jan 2007
Thanks for your note and please believe me, I know how destructive coal mining is. As a founder of the Waterkeeper Alliance and colleague of Bobby Kennedy Jr, I have supported his outspoken criticism of mountain top mining. Here in the west, I funded the work of Hopi elder Vernon Masayesva against the Peabody coal company, which led to the closure of a massive coal-fired power plant. The interview was about my book, which focuses on oil, so of course I tend to see things thru that lens, however I do not mean to minimize the impacts of coal mining or its current uses. By the way, I hear very good things about your work and please feel free to call on me if I can be of help.FYI.
www.grist.org
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:01 am
11 Jan 2007
Very encouraging for biogas I would say! Any links to this data?
I favor plugin serial hybrids using batteries for 40 mile range then solid oxide fuel cell/microturbine backup using biodiesel from algae grown in solar collectors. CO2 from fuel cells using biogas would boost the algae growth and sequester the cO2.
Actually the tiny amount of hydrogen fuel needed by a hypercar with this design might make hydrogen acceptable. Maybe in prefilled recyclable canisters you plug into you car. I can't see 3000 ib per square inch fueling by consumers as an insurable commercial activity. It was even deadly for the space shuttle!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Jon Posted 5:04 am
11 Jan 2007
You bring up the point that hydrogen is fairly abundant. But keep in mind that hydrogen is only an energy carrier (like a battery) and that it still has to be produced in some way. It is a fairly energy intensive process to use electrolysis, to extract it from natural gas or from coal (steam reforming). With any process, you incur efficiency losses. Picture it as adding another middle man between the coal plant and your car. At least with batteries you are taking a direct path without shaking hands with more players. So why not just take that initial electricity (energy) and put it into a battery bank of LiIon's? Seems simple.. no? With hydrogen you have to produce, store, transport and distribute (via truck?) and then build the gas pumps. It's no wonder Shell and other Oil and Gas companies are pushing it.. it's the same game that they play now!
I believe you are a bit misguided when it comes to the lifetime of batteries too. 3500 every 5 years? Battery technology has come a long way since the days of lead acids. NiMi and LiIon's have a life of 10+ years now when maintained. I have yet to hear of a fuel cell that has that kind of track record. One could argue that batteries loose efficiency in cold temps, but don't forget that fuel cells suffer from the same problems.. even ICE's do.
What about efficiency? Fuel cell's have an efficiency that is better then the best gas cars which come in at 40% max. Fuel cells are 50-60% efficient.. but electric is 90%. Thats a BIG difference on it's own. And thats after you have to source the energy.
So lets get to hard numbers here. Dollars. Is hydrogen going to win over the consumer when the cost of the energy is more then that of gas? When the cost of the technology is VERY expensive (Pallidium costs $328 usd/oz! Platinum.. im not so sure) Currently, the cost of a fuel cell would have to come down LOT to make it viable for the every day Joe. I personally cant afford a half million dollar car.
Anyways.. yes I do like electric vehicles. But I too have done a LOT of research into Hydrogen cars and technology. I know people who work at the companies developing Fuel Cells and have spoken to them regarding the technology and its future and even THEY will tell you that a consumer product (car) is a long, long ways off. It does hold some promise, but not in the automobile sector as of yet. Currently the only real demand for fuel cells is for forklifts as it provides a quick and efficient means of refueling and doesn't give off the emissions, but even that is a changing landscape.
Permalink
Jianguoxu Posted 5:14 am
11 Jan 2007
1) The (lower heating value of hydrogen to electricity conversion) efficiency of a proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cell, the essentially only type of fuel cell underdevelopment for vehicle applications, is rather low-it typically does not exceed 50% when the fuel cell works at a decent power density. When the parasitic losses, including that for running the air blower and that for thermal management system, are included, the typical net efficiency of a proton exchange membrane fuel cell running at 80 deg C is in 35-45% range at the name-plate power of a fuel cell. This is only about the half of the round-trip efficiency of a typical rechargeable battery, which runs at ambient temperature.
2) PEM fuel cells have to be operated at an elevated temperature, typically at around 80 deg C, in order to have the desired power density/specific power to run a vehicle. Therefore, it is necessary to have an additional energy/power source for the period during which the fuel cell is being heated up, from, for example, sub-freezing temperatures. This problem is currently solved by adding a large battery or supercapacitor for running the vehicle before the fuel cell is heated up. This significantly adds to the cost of the fuel cell.
Currently, as far as I know, there is even no speculation on how to solve this fundamental problem, let alone a plausible proposal for its solution. Such a situation is understandable since the relative inactivity of dioxygen at ambient temperature is after all the fundamental reason why the world as we see exists: without it, our furniture, all the plants and animals, including ourselves, would have been oxidized to form carbon dioxide, water, and some ashes, or rather, we would not have existed on the first place!
The above mentioned problems are not the only serious problems with FCV's. The issues of high cost of building a hydrogen fueling infrastructure, the lack of a satisfactory hydrogen storage means, the currently too short fuel cell life, owing to catalyst deactivation due to Pt particle migration towards the separator, due to loss of active site area resulting from catalyst particle growth, due to the peeling off of the electrodes from the membrane owing to repeated dry-wet cycles that come with the use pattern of passenger cars, due to fuel cell poisoning by sulfur-compounds and other poisons, lack of enough platinum resources to support the large number of vehicles in the world, the high cost of manufacturing fuel cell stacks etc. are all difficult problems that may or may not have technical solutions, let alone cost-effective, solutions. That compares very unfavorably with the fact that ICE-battery hybrid cars, clean diesel cars, and Miller cycle cars are already commercialized and competing in the market place-the major technical problems for them are already solved.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:17 am
11 Jan 2007
With cars that get over 200 mpg it doesn't take a very big gas cylinder to go 200 miles. It would be safe and consumer friendly.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:19 am
11 Jan 2007
He is heading in the right direction though, as DRx points out. A car burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine is a dead end strategy. A car burning hydrogen in a fuel cell to power an electric drive train like the Volt has potential. If and until the fuel cell and cheap hydrogen arrive, you can power the electric drive train with batteries charged off the grid, and also with internal combustion engines using a variety of fuels, including hydrogen, or even turbine or wrankel engines.
A car that can use up a tank of compressed natural gas, propane, or hydrogen before going back to gasoline is just another, rather old version of a hybrid car. What is worse, having to refill a propane tank every day or charge a battery every night?
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 6:17 am
11 Jan 2007
Tamminen seems to have a number of misapprehensions that help prevent gasoline substition, and has, I believe, a history of cashing the cheques. Go figure.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Burn boron in pure O2 for car propulsion
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 1:22 pm
11 Jan 2007
More benign, yes. Cheaper and more efficient, no. If renewable hydrogen generation was cheaper and more efficient, people would be investing and starting mass production by now. Instead, there are only a handful of demonstration projects. The only advantage of natural gas and coal is they're cheaper and more efficient. That's why they overwhelmingly dominate the maket.
Hydrogen's a chance to unlock the potential of wind,
It's more efficient and a better long term investment to build advanced electric transmission lines, to allow long distance distribution of power from scattered wind farms.
When they burn out in about five years, which is the useful life for most batteries
The Prius warrantees its batteries for 8 years and 100,000 miles; some owners have reported getting over 200,000 miles from their batteries.
Yes, you can use even traditional natural gas and coal and nuclear during off-peak hours, which is when most people would probably recharge their cars, at night, but at what cost in emissions?
Life cycle analyses of electric cars recharged by fossil-generated electricty show reductions in emissions due to superior efficiency. Hydrogen cars fueled by fossil sources increase emissions due to poor efficiency of the conversion processes.
But a battery, no matter how efficient you make it, is going to take six or eight hours to recharge.
Here's an electric vehicle, just introduced for the fleet market, that can recharge in 10 minutes: http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/
If a lot of t..., or 84% of the existing U.S. fleet.
Hydrogen vehicles were hyped by the federal government for years. Now the market, even GM, is realizing that battery hybrids and full electrics make a lot more sense, definitely in the short and medium term, and probably in the long term as well.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 1:27 pm
11 Jan 2007
Hydrogen is also going to create demand for more electricity generation, because we aren't going to be running our transportation fleet off of sewage. The difference is, hydrogen is a lot less efficient. We are better off converting biogas directly into electricy via fuel cells, and skipping the hydrogen conversion step.
First of all, we don't have the infrastructure, if everyone switched to an electric car tomorrow. We don't have enough transmission and generation stations.
Idle capacity in the existing electric power system can recharge 180 million vehicles, or 84% of the existing U.S. fleet.
Hydrogen vehicles were hyped by the federal government for years. Now the market, even GM, is realizing that battery hybrids and full electrics make a lot more sense, definitely in the short and medium term, and probably in the long term as well.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:37 pm
11 Jan 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:48 pm
11 Jan 2007
I'm still hoping he can prove that. It makes a biogas energy/fuel cell backup plan for wind, solar, and water power very practical. Hydrogen remains problematic as an energy storage media.
Come on Terry. Join the fray!
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
sunflower Posted 11:05 pm
11 Jan 2007
There's enough water dumped from Los Angeles sewage treatment plants alone to power the entire U.S. transportation fleet on hydrogen.
Of course you need the electricity, or some other way of breaking hydrogen out of the water. But we're not short of hydrogen. I think Terry is saying LA has water in the sewer, so we do not need oil.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:06 am
12 Jan 2007
A very poor spokesperson for the fabled hydrogen economy. Which is good actually, since it is primarily a scam.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
OhmExcited Posted 6:13 am
12 Jan 2007
Idle capacity in the existing electric power system can recharge 180 million vehicles, or 84% of the existing U.S. fleet.
Then shouldn't this idle capacity be used to make hydrogen for flex-fuel series hybrid vehicles until the number of those vehicles on American roads is 180 million?
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 6:28 am
12 Jan 2007
No, because electrolysis is so inefficient. Using grid electricity to make hydrogen gives you a fuel that is extremely expensive and too limited to power anywhere near 84% of the U.S. fleet.
Permalink
OhmExcited Posted 6:44 am
12 Jan 2007
Hydrogen has some other benefits. Unlike a diesel or gasoline generator on board a series hybrid, it produces no emissions (smog, NO, or CO2) around the area your breathe. Nor does it produce noise pollution around the area you sleep. Fuel cells like pure EV's are not oily and greasy under the hood. These factors increase quality of life.
Hydrogen does have some disadvantages that you mentioned. However, it isn't the only option with disadvantages.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 8:26 am
12 Jan 2007
Sure, but nowhere near as expensive as fuel cells. Hydrogen cars: Cost millions of dollars, are in prototype only, available in 15-20 years, no existing refueling infrastructure.
Battery electric cars: Cost tens of thousands of dollars, are in production and available now, refuel with existing transmission infrastructure.
Not to mention all the operational difficulties with fuel cells outlined very ably by other commenters on this thread.
Permalink
USSpite Posted 5:26 am
15 Jan 2007
2...Hydrogen tanks are super expensive and corrode easily and must be changed much more frequently then say the Nanosafe battery.
3...EV can be charged in 10 minutes - see PhoenixMotorcars
4...Hydrogen leaks cause holes in the ozone layer
5...Hydorgen cars may explode when have a strong storm or static electricity on driver's seat.
6...Losses 20% of energy in conversion from fossil fuel.
Permalink