This is a guest essay by Geoffrey Holland, co-author (with James Provenzano) of The Hydrogen Age: Empowering a Clean Energy Future, which will be out in the fall. I know there are many hydrogen skeptics in the audience, so remember: keep it civil and substantive.
-----
Of the vexing challenges humanity faces -- and there are many -- the most imminent is around energy. Beyond food, water, and shelter, anything more than basic survival requires a serious dose of energy. Oil, the fuel of choice for more than a century, is a finite resource facing a future of supply uncertainty and increasingly high cost to consumers. The use of oil also has very serious environmental consequences. Air pollution generated by our use of oil and other hydrocarbon fuels like coal is directly linked to global warming, the greatest manmade environmental threat Planet Earth has ever known. Our world desperately needs an alternative to oil that is both pollution free and endlessly abundant in supply. Fortunately, there is one alternative that meets those daunting criteria. That fuel -- a fuel that will have a major place in powering our homes, businesses, motor vehicles, aircraft, and shipping in coming years -- is hydrogen.
Some truths about hydrogen
- It is the simplest, most abundant substance in the universe. About 90 percent of all atoms that exist are hydrogen atoms.
- It is the chemical building block for all the other elements, indeed all that exists.
- It is the fuel that powers the stars, including our own sun.
- It is the fuel that powers life ... the ultimate source of energy for all living things.
- It is the best fuel alternative to liquid and gaseous fossil hydrocarbons like oil and natural gas.
- When consumed, it is entirely pollution free in most cases and nearly so in all the rest.
- It is the only energy carrier that is essentially limitless in supply.
- It is the only fuel that will go down in cost to the customer over time, as demand increases.
- It is no more dangerous to use than gasoline or natural gas. The evidence suggests that, in some ways, it may well be safer
Hydrogen is an energy carrier in the same sense that gasoline is an energy carrier. It is a fuel that can be used on demand, when and where needed. Hydrogen cannot be pumped from the ground or mined; it is made by separating hydrogen atoms away from one chemical compound or another. Ultimately, the best way to get hydrogen is to split water molecules (H2O) in a process called electrolysis. It takes about 50 kilowatt hours of electricity and about two gallons of water to generate a kilogram of hydrogen. That would be roughly equivalent to the energy content of one gallon of gasoline.
In cost, it is competitive, given a transparent and level playing field, with gasoline, natural gas, and other established forms of energy. Electricity and hydrogen are often seen as interchangeable sides of the same coin. Electricity is ephemeral in nature. It has to be used immediately or be stored in some other form. Chemical batteries are improving, but will always be limited in the amount of electricity they can store. The best, most readily adaptable way to store large quantities of electricity is to convert it to hydrogen, which for many decades has been traded as a major industrial commodity. In 2004, more than 40 million tons of hydrogen was consumed by industry worldwide.
There are a handful of issues that come up when skeptics attempt to characterize hydrogen.
Safety
Hydrogen is a fuel. Like other fuels it burns and can even be explosive in a confined space in the presence of oxygen. But hydrogen is no more dangerous than other fuels. The space program has a long, mostly trouble-free record with hydrogen. Retired NASA Engineer Addison Bain, an expert on management of hydrogen systems, says, "Hydrogen is very predictable. We've had very few problems over the years."
A University of Miami study commissioned by the Ford Motor Company concluded that hydrogen is different than gasoline and other hydrocarbon forms of energy, but not more dangerous, and in fact in some circumstances safer. We've grown accustomed to pumping gas into our cars and using natural gas in our homes; there is no reason to think we cannot find the same level of safety and comfort with hydrogen.
Efficiency
An official who makes policy for state government on renewable energy recently said to me, "Why waste energy converting electrons to hydrogen?" A person in that position should know better. The answer is neither complicated nor illogical. Where vehicles are concerned, electricity may work -- may even be the best source of energy, in some instances -- but where a lot of power and any kind of range between refills is required, electricity is not the answer.
As for commercial aviation, it would not even exist if airliners had to run on stored electricity. Hydrogen is the best fuel for powered flight in the future.
The world has a very real need for a clean energy currency that can be stored for use on demand. Hydrogen is that clean energy currency. Yes, it's true there is an efficiency penalty that goes with converting electricity to hydrogen, but that is true for every kind of fuel. It takes energy to make energy. What matters is the fuel cost per mile driven. On that basis, hydrogen, when all factors are considered, fares well against the cost of gasoline and other hydrocarbon fuels.
Lest anyone think that providing energy in the form of gasoline is efficient, keep in mind: all the cheap, easy-to-find oil is long gone. Oil is a finite and increasingly scarce resource. The most recent find reported by one of the world's oil giants is in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico. Getting to it required a floating drilling rig, built for something like a billion dollars. To reach the oil, the rig had to sink a drill through 9,000 feet of water to the ocean bottom then grind through another 20,000 feet of rock. Add on the cost of bringing the oil to the surface, sending it to a refinery, processing it, then dispersing it to filling stations across the country. Is that efficient? In the end, efficiency only matters in so far as it affects the cost of the fuel at the pump.
The hydrogen fueling infrastructure
At the moment, with the exception of California, which has a small but growing network of hydrogen fueling stations, the U.S. has no fueling infrastructure for delivering hydrogen to the general public. But then, at the moment, there are only a few hundred hydrogen vehicles in the U.S. That will change.
General Motors has announced that it will lease about 100 of its Chevy Sequel fuel cell vehicles to U.S. customers starting later this year. Honda will do the same thing with its fuel cell FCX vehicle in 2008.
Still, for hydrogen to become a major energy player, fueling stations must be put in place all across the country. This is a challenge, but not so big as it might seem. A hydrogen fueling station costs between $400,000 and $1,000,000 to install. A study commissioned by General Motors indicates that a hydrogen infrastructure with a fueling station within about six miles of 70 percent of the nation's population could be put in place with an investment of about $12 billion dollars. That may seem like a lot, but put in perspective, it's about what our government spends every month to maintain the armed occupation of Iraq.
Europe, Japan, and China have launched plans to develop extensive hydrogen fueling networks. In the U.S., hydrogen powered vehicles could arrive in auto showrooms in as little as five years from now. They will come to California first because that state is already building a hydrogen highway refueling network. Other states have declared their intention to do the same.
Hydrogen technologies are advancing rapidly
Over the past decade, a frenzy of research on the hydrogen fuel cell, an electrochemical device first used in the manned space program, has led to the development of a variety of fuel cell types designed to produce electricity to meet just about every kind of energy need. In Japan, one kilowatt fuel cell systems are now being installed to power private homes. The Japanese government is providing substantial incentives to put tens of thousands of these self-sufficient, residential fuel cell units in place over the next few years. Micro fuel cells designed to provide extended endurances for portable devices like laptops, cell phones, PDAs, and iPods are on the verge of commercialization.
The auto industry has poured billions into the development of fuel cell and internal combustion engines that run on hydrogen. Virtually every auto company has some kind of hydrogen powered vehicle positioned for commercialization in the next decade. Larry Burns, Vice President for Research and Development at General Motors has said, "A new automotive DNA is emerging ... General Motors absolutely sees the future of the world being based on a hydrogen economy. Forty-five percent of the Fortune 500 companies will be affected, impacting almost two trillion dollars in revenue."
Over the long term, hydrogen offers the world the best chance to end its addiction to oil. Technologies are sufficiently advanced now to begin a major deployment of hydrogen technologies.
Growing a hydrogen constituency
My friend and colleague, William Hoagland, who once ran the U.S. government's hydrogen energy research program, said at an energy conference in 1993, "What hydrogen needs more than anything is a constituency." That is still true today. Each of us has a big stake in the energy choices being made right now. The world must wean itself from dependence on oil and other fossil forms of energy. We must do it now, not decades from now.
In the current discussion, a number of energy alternatives are aggressively being positioned as a replacement for oil. A lot of money is being spent by deep pocket players who seek an expanded share of the energy pie for natural gas, corn-based ethanol, other forms of biofuel, and nuclear power. For better or worse, each of these well-financed alternatives will have a place at the energy table in the foreseeable future.
In the coming era, there will be no single dominant source of energy. Over the long term, the vision that will ultimately prevail is the one that relies on a diverse portfolio of clean, renewable forms of energy like wind, solar, hydro, ocean wave, geothermal, and biowaste. Hydrogen is the key to this sustainable energy vision. It is the common currency by which all of these clean sources of energy can be linked together and stored away for use on demand, safely, cost effectively, when and where needed. The technology also exists to cleanly convert traditional, polluting forms of hydrocarbon energy like coal to hydrogen. Existing nuclear facilities offer great potential for hydrogen production during off-peak hours.
We are at the beginning of the most important energy transition in the history of humanity. We are moving into an era powered by cheap, abundant, and environmentally benign energy. The future of the human family will be built with electricity and hydrogen as interchangeable energy currencies.
Fully implementing the era of clean, limitless renewably generated hydrogen energy is in every person's interest. Growing a hydrogen constituency is critical to that process. It is about individuals educating themselves. It is about environmental groups, social justice organizations, and those who champion indigenous rights recognizing that coming together and becoming enthusiastic hydrogen constituents is one of the best ways to support their own noble goals while working for a dignified, sustainable energy future that leaves no one behind.
All things considered, who wouldn't choose a world powered by unlimited quantities of pollution free energy that exists as either electricity or hydrogen? The sooner it happens, the better for all the world's people.
More reading:
Hydrogen fuel cell cars are a dead end from a technological, practical, and climate perspective
U.K. subsidizes EVs, Amory Lovins talks trucks, and more green auto news
Comments
View as Flat
odograph Posted 2:58 am
12 Jul 2007
"It is the simplest, most abundant substance in the universe. About 90 percent of all atoms that exist are hydrogen atoms."
Cool ... it must be cheap and widely available then, eh?
Permalink
odograph Posted 3:09 am
12 Jul 2007
They proclaim a technology as a winner, based on inventions (cheap batteries and effective batteries) to be made later.
That's a lot like declaring hydrogen king, based on its series of necessary future-inventions.
I'd think we should name as kings, or winners, things that are cheap and effective today ... like bicycles and Priuses.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 3:38 am
12 Jul 2007
In a perfect world I would only tend to my vegetable garden, and everybody is smart, educated, honest, and using advanced technology for solar electricity and electric transportation. In an imperfect world H2 is ok by me.
There is enough solar energy to power our electric cars, steam our industries, heat our homes, and also make gigatons of H2. There is enough solar energy to try many different ideas. There is no shortage of solar energy. Who are we to say how it should be used?
Permalink
Elliotte Posted 3:40 am
12 Jul 2007
Permalink
Jon Rynn Posted 3:46 am
12 Jul 2007
Permalink
birdboy Posted 3:55 am
12 Jul 2007
Cost and effficiency are different issues. The little detail left out here is that this apparently abundant and clean hydrogen is all tied up in deep covalent bonds to water or carbon atoms- to release the hydrogen, it takes a lot of energy that could have been used directly as electricity or fuel for doing work. Why are we not given the actual efficiency number here- how many joules are used up in producing a joule of energy from hydrogen? Surely one of our resident engineers has this number- what is the real energy balance?
The statement that hydrogen is competative is only true as long as the energy needed to release it from water molecules is cheap. When we are paying the true cost of burning oil or coal, or using nuclear energy to produce hydrogen (including subsidies and environmental impacts), only then will the true cost of hydrogen become apparent.
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
mbradc2002 Posted 4:03 am
12 Jul 2007
Yes, but where are you going to get that 50 kilowatt hours of electricity? That's the problem with hydrogen. It's not a source or energy. It doesn't matter how abundant the hydrogen atoms are in the universe or that it powers the sun.
"We are moving into an era powered by cheap, abundant, and environmentally benign energy."
What source of energy are you talking about? Wind? Solar? There's no way those sources are going to be enough to power our current transportation system with hydrogen. We currently use about 390 million gallons of gasoline everyday in the US. It would take about double the current US electricity generation to replace that 390 million gallons of gasoline using your 50 kwh/gal figure. I think hydrogen may be a useful method of storing energy but it is simply not possible that it will ever power all the cars on the road. It won't even come close.
I really do wonder why people like you push hydrogen. It's just a red herring designed to distract people from the real problem. And that is, where does our energy come from when the oil runs out.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 4:07 am
12 Jul 2007
If an argument for hydrogen is to be persuasive, it needs to take into account the public's increased energy sophistication. It is now easy to recognize statements that are irrelevant or misleading: It is the fuel that powers the stars, including our own sun. [irrelevant]
When consumed, it is entirely pollution free in most cases and nearly so in all the rest. [misleading - the pollution problem for H is located in the generation phase, not the consumption phase]
It is the only energy carrier that is essentially limitless in supply. [irrelevant and misleading - the limitation is energy sources]
The essay skirts the key point, which odograph alludes to: Hydrogen is NOT an energy source.
The question is: how is energy to be generated? Coal? Nuclear? Solar? Wind? Or better yet, how can we live satisfying lives with less energy?
The sad truth is that not enough energy can be generated by "a diverse portfolio of clean, renewable forms of energy" to satisfy the growing demand. Even less energy will be available because of constraints on fossil fuels due to supply limitations (peak oil) and global warming.
Arguing about hydrogen versus electricity, is like arguing about whether you will keep your fortune in cash or in bonds. The real problem is getting the money in the first place.
Whether hydrogen or electricity is preferable depends on the application, as Geoffrey Holland says. This is a technical/economic question that I haven't followed closely, though I'm struck by the cost of a new infrastructure and the many glitches that keep cropping up.
My sense is that widespread hydrogen use is not in the cards. There certainly isn't the enthusiasm for hydrogen that there once was.
I would be dead-set against subsidizing a hydrogen infrastructure - basically a subsidy for US car manufacturers and drivers - a subsidy with a good chance of not panning out.
Bart
Energy Bulletin
Permalink
rmcleod Posted 4:08 am
12 Jul 2007
* It is the simplest, most abundant substance in the universe. About 90 percent of all atoms that exist are hydrogen atoms.While this may be true for the universe in general, it is not true on this planet.
* It is the chemical building block for all the other elements, indeed all that exists.
If by 'chemical' you mean 'nuclear', I might accept that. Chemistry is generally the science of electron bonding, and since hydrogen normally doesn't include neutrons, I don't know how you can justify this statement.
* It is the fuel that powers the stars, including our own sun.
Partially true, but substantial energy contribution comes from the fusion of heavier elements, such as carbon forming iron. Irrelevant to hydrogen's suitability as an energy carrier.
* It is the fuel that powers life ... the ultimate source of energy for all living things.
Given that none of oxygen, glucose, or ATP are molecular 'hydrogen' I don not know where this claim arises.
* It is the best fuel alternative to liquid and gaseous fossil hydrocarbons like oil and natural gas.
Unsubstantiated.
* When consumed, it is entirely pollution free in most cases and nearly so in all the rest.
True, but sidesteps the obvious issue of production. All industrial hydrogen production is produced by the steam-reforming of natural gas, or rarely coal.
* It is the only energy carrier that is essentially limitless in supply.
Clearly false, photons and electrons are not in 'short supply'.
* It is the only fuel that will go down in cost to the customer over time, as demand increases.
Unsubstantiated.
* It is no more dangerous to use than gasoline or natural gas. The evidence suggests that, in some ways, it may well be safer
A flat out lie. I work with hydrogen as a process gas for vacuum evaporation of thin films and it's the most dangerous one we have. Hydrogen can detonate from static electricity in pretty much any concentration. Here's a Material Safety Data Sheet:
http://www.praxair.com/praxair.nsf/0/ea179e7fb21df0858525 ...
We store our hydrogen cylinder in a special cabinet equipped with a sensor to detect leaks and a sprinkler to douse it if one occurs.
The idea that 'NASA uses it so it must be safe' is a straw man. NASA uses highly toxic hypergolic hydrazine and nitrogen tetroxide in the attitude control thrusters of the shuttle. This doesn't make them 'safe' for public use by Joe Smoe.
I have discussed the drawbacks of hydrogen before I would like to present what I wrote last year about the three inescapable problems associated with hydrogen production, storage, and generation:
http://entropyproduction.blogspot.com/2006/07/hydrogens-d ...
Warning: my post contains some numbers, unlike the above by Geoffrey Holland.
--
entropyproduction.blogspot.com
Permalink
odograph Posted 4:15 am
12 Jul 2007
rmcleod writes:
"If by 'chemical' you mean 'nuclear', I might accept that. Chemistry is generally the science of electron bonding, and since hydrogen normally doesn't include neutrons, I don't know how you can justify this statement."
Actually, I accept that hydrogen is a wonderful chemical building block. That problem with that, as we see in discussion above, is that you have to un-build it, break it apart, to join it again as molecular hydrogen (H2).
It is hydrogen's success as a 'building block' that makes it hard to get as an energy carrier.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:20 am
12 Jul 2007
H2O ~ H2 O ~ H20 round robin electrolysis ~ 50% efficient.
Permalink
rmcleod Posted 4:44 am
12 Jul 2007
It is hydrogen's success as a 'building block' that makes it hard to get as an energy carrier.
This is not what he claimed. For hydrogen to form other elements it has to undergo nuclear fusion. Ergo, nuclear fusion is not a chemical reaction, it is an interaction of strong nuclear force. His claim is roughly equivalent to saying gravity holds a water molecule together.
--
entropyproduction.blogspot.com
Permalink
Geoff Holland Posted 5:08 am
12 Jul 2007
Co-Author, The Hydrogen Age
Permalink
odograph Posted 5:16 am
12 Jul 2007
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 5:19 am
12 Jul 2007
Hey, rmcleod: Thanks for the point by point comments on the bullets. Most of the bullets are superfluous for the purpose at hand.
Still, as Sunflower has ably pointed out, I feel that H2 is the best solution possible, provided it is done sustainably. This means only--rigorously only--Wind and Solar for hydrolysis or other process for production of H2.
I read of a storage medium that holds the H2 at much lower pressures than those currently needed, which enormously reduces the safety concern.
Infrastructure cost is certainly a problem, but look at all the various types of installed infrastructure, past, present and future--from Wal-Marts and ATMs to transportation and defense systems. Why do we balk at these costs?
I read about this topic and these discussions, and it occurs to me a lot of people are protecting turf, rather than looking for solutions.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
ploots67 Posted 5:20 am
12 Jul 2007
While all of the falsified points against hydrogen have been counter in numerous papers, such as: http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf
It is important to consider the following:
The oil and auto industry consider the battery industry to be a failed technology that can never be made or delivered in the form factor, price point, range or efficiency that they care about. (It doesn't matter, for this argument, what YOU think.) So they got together and used "layered anti-evangelism" to manipulate the battery industry.
"Layered anti-evangelism" is an intelligence agency third world manipulation device that works like this:
Select the target: In this case it is hydrogen fuel cells, which have been demonstrated to beat batteries on every business front.
Select your internal agents. In this case lobbyists and "writers" that are paid by the oil and auto industry.
Have the agents contact and talk to the "sheep". In this case the sheep are the writers for battery industry trades and heads of battery lobby or support organizations.
Have the agents convince the sheep via skewed data provision. In this case selected reports were written and then shown to the sheep to convince the sheep that hydrogen fuels cells would steal their funding, put them out of business and that the only source of hydrogen was from the "evil oil companies".
So you have battery evangelists who are anti-hydrogen sheep:
Ulf Bossel of the European Fuel Cell Forum Alec Brooks- EV World Sam Thurber
Yet for every manipulated argument they come up with, they are shot down by hundreds of sites with facts, ie: http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid985.php
WHY? Because you can make hydrogen at home and the ability to do it fast, cheap and clean is coming 40 times faster than they thought.
This happened, using the same process, to:
1.) Electric light rail in America (US Vs. National City Lines, 334 US 573)
2.) The EV1 (Movie: Who killed the electric car) Etc.
The interventions of these 'doubters' fall into a number of clear categories which I'll summarise as:
1 "You can't succeed because no-one has ever succeeded at this (sports car making / battery-power / taking on the majors, etc etc) before". - May I commend to everyone Dava Sobel's wonderful (and short!) book, "Longitude", which offers a perfect map of the tendency of government and the scientific establishment collude to reject true innovation. This effect can only be overcome when a tipping-point of perceived popular utility is reached, at which point the establishment suddenly has a bout of collective amnesia about their earlier denials. (Same story many times over, historically, of course - from Gallileo onwards.)
2 "It's inefficient to carry around". Rather as it's inefficient to carry around a full tank of gas, perhaps? Or to carry around a SUV chassis which itself weighs a ton or more? (Come on, Detroit, you can find a better argument than that, surely?)
3 "This technology is not a solution and never will be." This very much reminds me of the IBM's famously short-sighted take on the prospect of home computing, back in the 70s. The language of these contributions, let alone their content, points to a thought-process rooted in volume-producers'
vested interests. Consider the successes of some other new-tech challengers of vested interests: Dyson taking on Hoover with a bagless vacuum-cleaner; Bayliss bringing clockwork (i.e. battery-less) radios and laptops to the third world; thin-film solar panels (sorry, can't remember who, but you know who I mean). On this point, it was deeply depressing, at a high-level environmental science conference of the UK Government last year, for me to witness a "leading and respected" Professor of Transport rejecting electric traction out-of-hand with the words "it will never be more than just power storage on a trolley". Given that this "expert" was advising ministers of state setting future national policy on alternative transport, my immediate thought was "Who pays this man's research grant?"
So let's be vigilant for any who claim, in a smooth way, that invention can't possibly have the answers. From a position of some expertise in this field, may I remind readers that the "you-don't-understand-how-our-industry-works" argument has been the policy instrument of choice for numerous corporate fraudsters and protectionists down the ages (Enron, anyone?). New York's energetic DA, Mr Spitzer, has made a fine career out of challenging such thinking in the finance sector (with the simple rejoinder: "WHY does your industry work like that? Against customer choice?"). And then of course there's the entire consumer movement (remember Flaming Fords? remember "Unsafe at Any Speed"?). We can and should ask the same questions of the conventional auto industry.
The good news is that genuine innovation will out - as long as ordinary consumers are able to find it and buy it. One of the early lessons of the twentyfirst century, thank goodness, is that the old-school, browbeating style of corporate communication - terrorising one's customers into rejecting alternatives - increasingly fails as people wise up to making decisions based on their own independently-gathered information about benefits and risks. (Interestingly, a popular reaction against "selling by fear" is also now happening in the political field. Now why might that be?) As a consumer, one doesn't have to agree with the in-ya-face techniques of anticorporate critics like Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock to still subscribe to the view that we can buy what we want to buy. We no longer want to be told by old-tech that new-tech is inherently suspect. Isn't it old-tech that brought us dependency on oil, climate change, wars over energy sources?
So c'mon people, how about a reward system for "spot the spoiler"? I'm all for free debate on the issues, but some of these blogs smell rather like the work of paid old-tech corporatists trying to sabotage your success.
Challenge such interventions with the greatest possible vigour, and let consumers decide for themselves!
1.) Battery companies are spending millions of dollars to knock H2
because it works longer, better, faster and cheaper than batteries! Most of the people writing these screaming anti-H2 articles are battery company shills or have investments there. H2 does beat batteries on every front so the should be SCARED!
2.) The steel unions hate H2 because H2 cars don't use steel. Steel is
too hard to afford any more so nobody will use it in any case.
3.) Activists hate H2 because they think it can only be made by the oil
companies and they hate the oil companies. This is a falsehood created by the battery and steel guys.
4.) Oil companies hate H2 because it is so much better than oil but they
only get to hate it unto 2030 when the affordable oil runs out. Then they know they must love it because H2 energy will be all that is left. The Oil industry is dismayed that H2 is coming on so fast and they are trying to slow it down even more.
5.) Other alternative energy interests hate it because it is getting all
of the funding because the polita-nomics are better with H2 than ANYTHING ELSE ON EARTH.
We have made hydrogen at home with free energy. If the gasoline in your car blows up it will do a VAST AMOUNT more death and damage than H2 ever will.
You are driving a MOLOTOV COCKTAIL. In 2030 oil is GONE and there is NO OTHER OPTION that can be delivered world-wide in time but H2!
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 5:26 am
12 Jul 2007
Joe Romm makes many of the key points, but I will add a few more:
The comment about it being plentiful - and therefore inevitable - is bunk. There are more electrons in the universe than there are hydrogen atoms. So if "lots of it in the universe" is the key criteria for energy use, then you could equally argue that we should shift to an all-electric world, like that touted by the nuclear industry in the 50s. And if you really want to quibble, there are even more quarks than there are electrons. Maybe quantum energy is the fuel of the future? Heck, let's go the other way - coal is the most ubiquitous fossil fuel in the US. Ergo it must be the best one, right? The benefit and economic consequences of a fuel are based on much more practical issues than how much of it there is in the universe, and we really need to stop focusing on this particular red herring.
The absolutely key issue with hydrogen is storage, and until this is cracked, there is no good environmental reason to invest another dollar in hydrogen. And not only have we not yet found a good way to store hydrogen, but we also don't even know whether such a method theoretically exists.
This second point is related to the first. The plentiful nature of hydrogen is in large degree because it is on the bottom of the periodic table - it is the thing everything else breaks down to. Thus, it is really small, really light and really diffuse. This all makes it really hard to economically store it in any kind of size/weight that makes commercial or environmental sense (electricity has the same problem).
Let's look at what this means: Compressing hydrogen to 5000 psi (the pressure commonly recognized to be necessary to get a 300-mile range fuel cell vehicle, even once you factor in the higher vehicle efficiency) requires running fueling stations at 6000 - 8000 psi (since you have to have a positive pressure differential between the station and the car). The energy required to run these compressors is about 7% of the nascent energy in the compressed fuel. Thus, even before you factor in upstream (or downstream) losses, you lose almost 10% of your fuel just to fuel the vehicle. Liquefaction (as touted by BMW) is even worse, checking in at about 30% of the liquefied fuel. No one has yet come up with metal hydrides, chemical storage, carbon nanotubes or any other idea that are close to being practical (or proven) for automotive applications. Thus, a hydrogen transportation economy - absent a revolution in storage - is an economy that uses a lot more upstream energy than the one we live in. And lest we try to write off the difficulties of this technological leap, let's recognize that virtually all of the benefits of hydrogen are also met by compressed natural gas vehicles (OK, a little more carbon, but only if you can guarantee that the hydrogen won't be derived from fossil sources. Absent that guarantee, upstream processing efficiency losses could actually make CNG a less carbon-intensive system than one running on hydrogen). CNG "only" has to be compressed to 3000 psi given its higher molecular energy density. And it's nowhere near market-ready. (Indeed, one could argue that if we figure out how to get all the bits & pieces in place for a hydrogen economy, we'll end up seeing a lot more CNG vehicles before we get there. Is anyone prepared to gamble that we'd retool the whole vehicle infrastructure to go from gasoline to CNG and then shift again from CNG to hydrogen...?)
OK, so what about electric power? Same deal, but worse. If I can't store and transport the hydrogen, I am bound to convert it into electricity at the point of hydrogen production. And if you think that a hydrogen economy is a renewable economy, then that means that we're running solar panels to make electricity so that we can use the electricity to run electrolyzers that make hydrogen so that we can put the hydrogen into fuel cells to make.... electricity? Why add all the clap trap on the back end? Let's just use the electricity from the solar panel to begin with and save both capex and efficiency! If we can't store the hydrogen in a cost- and energy-efficient way, we don't have the option to save it until the sun isn't shining.
And this brings me to the last point. If we ever really got a hydrogen economy, it would be produced by the lowest cost supply. Virtually all of today's hydrogen (quite a bit is currently manufactured from natural gas at margarine plants) is made from natural gas. With a big enough market, we might also use off-peak coal and nuclear. But we shouldn't dream that we are going to ensure that all hydrogen would be renewable. So now we have a really inefficient fuel cycle that is fueled by more coal, gas and nuclear fuel than we would have used if we stuck with the current paradigm. Dumb.
So should we abandon hydrogen? Perhaps not. Technologies do have the habit of surprising. But we shouldn't invest any significant effort in anything beyond hydrogen storage, because until that nut is cracked, there is zip for economic or environmental benefit that can possibly come from a hydrogen economy. And in the meantime, let's not spend smart brain cells day dreaming about a hydrogen world when there are so many cleaner and cheaper paths to CO2 reduction.
Permalink
odograph Posted 5:50 am
12 Jul 2007
Is my frustration the same or different?
I want to know why comment creatures like ourselves so often build sky castles, "solutions" based on future inventions.
As far as I'm concerned, it is not a "solution" if it still has to be invented. It is, at most, a "potential solution."
In the meantime, insert list of things to do today.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:26 am
12 Jul 2007
However, if you were to place a bet on purchasing a hydrogen powered car or a plug-in hybrid in the near future, where would you put your money? Not all schemes have the same probability of success.
I was predicting that I would build a hybrid plug-in bike based on the Dewalt nano-phosphate battery a month before they hit the market. That bet payed off.
I also like Bart's nostalgia post. This hydrogen economy stuff is getting so old.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:39 am
12 Jul 2007
It seems that this may apply to energy as well. This latest round of hydrogen fascination doesn't seem to add anything to prior iterations.
My father, originally a mathematician, finished his career in the 1980s as a project manager for the government, looking at hydrogen for its various vehicle fleets. As Sean Casten writes above, the bottom line came down to one critical constraint: storage.
Hydrogen vehicles can be made--I got to sit in one and watch it drive around a long time ago, and then again quite recently. But, like the nuclear airplane before it, the tradeoffs sink the project --- the tradeoffs just don't make sense for the purpose.
Hydrogen fascination really has to be considered an advanced form of ethanomania -- a slight further step in the search for the holy grail of fuels that will allow us to keep on truckin' as we've been conditioned to do since birth. The arguments for both are really quite similar:
"there's planty of (corn/water)"
"EROEI is negative for all fuels anyway"
"it's the oil industry that's against opposition to (ethanol/hydrogen)"
etc. etc. etc.
Of course the most advanced version is that you will have hydrogen fuel celled cars plugging into the renewably powered houses and exchanging energy with them in either direction as needed - of course, the proponents skip right over the storage issue and the huge energy cost of the multiple transformations, because it's all just so darn alluring.
And it IS alluring, because it fits perfectly into the single-detached home/private auto worldview that the proponents are desperate to maintain.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 7:10 am
12 Jul 2007
Silicon has its fans, or one fan anyway: N. Auner. The power station would take silica, which is even more abundant than water, and ship silicon.
My preferred energy carrier B is limitless only if you ship the B2O3 back.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes --
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 7:31 am
12 Jul 2007
Hey, all:
Hey, Odograph: I had to read carefully but I think I understand and I largely agree. My understanding of the technology is that it (H2 sustainably produced) can be done now, there are pilot programs needing funding, but which of course have to compete in the market with everything else. Stanley Ovshinsky apparently has a stand-alone H2 generator using PV. He also has a low-pressure H2 storage tank which reduces the safety concern (as I wrote earlier).
Odo, for the sake of clarity, I would make a distinction between technologies currently available and on the market, technologies that are available but cannot get a foothold in the public, and, as you say, "future inventions". My focus is on the second group. I use Wind (a turbine) and Sun (PV), and although they have been around for many years, still struggle for acceptance and wide use. I also have a solar domestic water heater. Collectively 98% of my domestic energy is sustainable. I keep imagining how much reductions we could realize if these technologies were more widely accepted and used. Now, I have no financial stake in these technologies but I tell everyone I know anyway.
At the risk of parsing your comments, there are "potential solutions" on a broad spectrum, some of which are sci-fi on one end, and therefore foolish, and overlooked and abandoned and disregarded on the other,and therefore missed opportunities. Still, I do build sky castles--guilty.
So, my list of today's tasks contains a item, to continue to to spread the word. I would also like to find a Hydrogen car, since I could make H2 by hydrolysis from the waste electricity I produce--all sustainably. I could also charge an electric car with the same waste, so I am flexible. Does this help your frustration?
Often, government policy reflecting corporate agendas make it impossible to achieve a level field. It seems agro-fuels now have the full domination of government attention. All the talk of hybrids only extend the life of fossil fuels exploitation, and then the use of agro-fuels and all of the destructive potential of that boondoggle. I think the goal is to stop the use of Carbon.
If this is unrealistic I hope someone without an ax or agenda will correct me, otherwise you might as well save it, since if you are protecting commercial turf instead of searching for answers that will bring us sustainability, you are wasting people's time and energy.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
sunflower Posted 7:48 am
12 Jul 2007
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 8:33 am
12 Jul 2007
From Odo through BioD:
"I'd think we should name as kings, or winners, things that are cheap and effective today ... like bicycles and Priuses."
Well, slap a big ol' sticker on me that says "Biased", but I would certainly add Wind and Sun! And I would do so completely unabashedly! Not as cheap as a bicycle but a lot longer lasting than a Prius! And highly effective! Not so biased, huh!
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
odograph Posted 8:34 am
12 Jul 2007
Maybe, given a strong enough build-out, in the future we'll have enough green power to do a lot of green hydrogen.
Or, we might just have enough green electricity to run our ground-source heat pumps. Time will tell.
(Should the guy with the low pressure hydrogen tank be instead reducing his neighbor's draw from the grid? If he has a close-enough neighbor, he could do the math.)
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 8:49 am
12 Jul 2007
Nothing to add, just repeating for emphasis:
Sunflower said:
Pissing in the wind
Something I see in others, and I see in myself, that commercial interests in potential wedge solutions are not so important on a sinking ship. Solving the problem is far more important than personal interests. Many of us have been living with this nightmare of global warming for a long time.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 8:59 am
12 Jul 2007
Even as late as the turn of the century, you could still argue there was a horse race between battery powered vehicles and fuel cell powered vehicles. The technology was advancing, new discoveries and processes developed, new government R&D programs were announced.
Today batteries are far ahead in the race. So far, hydrogen and fuel cells have proved to be too expensive, too fragile, and too flammable for widespread commercialization. Storage and distribution remain thorny problems.
Maybe one day hydrogen will catch up and exceed batteries. Research should continue. Subsidies and price supports, however, are a poor idea. The hydrogen vs. battery horse race illustrates the why government shouldn't try to pick market winners speculatively.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:36 am
12 Jul 2007
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/1/113316/9570
and the hydrogen economy idea in general here:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/18/14459/0937
...around and around we go, twirling, twirling...
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 10:40 am
12 Jul 2007
Unfortunately, it's all claimed and little is vented in those giant industrial flares unless a refinery burps.
But for a while I was a big fan of what was called "Hythane," a mixture of very clean methane natural gas and hydrogen. Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio tested it and it was very promising, although even with 100% hydrogen burned you still had some significant emissions due to combustion inefficiencies, dirty intake air, and lube oil.
Plus, combustion of hydrogen causes water, CO2, and heat, right? Doh, not gud for global warming!
Molecular sieves might work but is slow, more conducive to fuel cells. Making the stuff from electrical power is ludicrous, since the amount of power to create hydrogen is greater than the heat value of the hydrogen itself. To use fuel cells to make hydrogen for a hybrid fuel cell car just seems weird to me, but have at it, peeps. Hythane (tm) wasn't a bad idea, just nobody wants explosive gases in their garage.
Think about it. /sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:57 am
12 Jul 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen3.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars2.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen3
http://www.efcf.com/e/reports/E11.pdf
In short, every mile driven on hydrogen from electricity, will emit atleast 3-4x more polution than raw electricity.
Hydrogen produced from the Californian grid, and water, will emit more CO2 than gasoline. And thats one of the cleanest grids around.
Besides which, PEM fuel cells are prone to catalyst poisoning, and are thus extremely brittle. We don't have enough pallidium, platinum, gold, or rhodium to run our nation's
Storing energy as hydrogen loses atleast 50% of the original energy your had when you take it out. (Which does not include the tranmission line loss)
PEM Fuel Cells are dead already. RIP.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:08 am
12 Jul 2007
Given the new league of electric batteries, and electric battery chargers thats no longer a restriction.
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3
Actually it never really was much of a restriction to begin with
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge2
Ah yes, and of course, driving on electricity produced from Coal would be like driving a hybrid.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3
And we already have nearly all the power plants we need to power the entire US car fleet on offhours electricity.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4
And, the batteries could go a long way towards making the grid even better, while at the same time reducing the cost-of-ownership of electric cars.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins5
So far there is no hydrogen car coming out in the forseeable future which consumers can purchase. Only a couple which will be leased. (And we all know how much a bait and switch leasing is)
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 11:14 am
12 Jul 2007
So the number-crunching engineers or economists, accountants, or clerks, or whatever, remain slaves to such things as biofuels, offsets, cap and trade, voluntary Carbon taxes, and Carbon sequestration--patsies, shills, and stooges for the Corporate Oligarchy. I expected more.
Wake up--the ship is sinking, your hair is on fire, people are shooting at us, volcanoes are erupting, the sky is falling, no one is answering the phone, your families are being kidnapped and poisoned, we are being bombed. Do you so-called experts and visionaries understand the scale of the problem?
For whom DO you speak? Do you understand that the old ways no longer work? So your prescription for change is yet more half-assed, half-hearted, half-way measures? Do you rent your spines?
Sam Wells: Maybe Hythane produces CO2 on combustion, but hydrogen only produces H2O. But you knew that. Just nitpicking.
David
Sustainablity For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 11:25 am
12 Jul 2007
How much energy would you have left?
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 12:49 am
13 Jul 2007
Electrolyzers run about 80% efficient (elec --> hydrogen). The most efficient fuel cells are about 50% efficient, once all the losses associated the pressurization and inversion are taken into account. The US transmission and distribution grid has 9.5% losses on average (although peak losses are much higher). Let's assume that's all you do. Therefore, 1 unit of wind-to-electric-to-hydrogen electricity needs
1 / 0.8 / 0.5 / (1-0.095) = 2.73 units of upstream wind. The whole cycle is thus 1/2.73 = 36% efficient. (I am ignoring the efficiency of converting wind into electricity, but since wind is ultimately finite, you could add this on if you want).
Just to make it interesting, and perhaps more realistic, the fossil-fired US power grid is 33% efficient. So if we made hydrogen from average grid electricity, we would need:
2.73 / 0.33 = 8.27 units of upstream fossil fuel, giving us an overall fossil fuel to electric conversion efficiency of 1/8.27 = 12%.
As I said before, dumb, dumb, dumb.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:44 am
13 Jul 2007
Finally.
An article in Grist that makes sense, technologically.
And, of course, the Hydrogen Deniers are out in full force...
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 2:55 am
13 Jul 2007
The "hair on fire" argument is suspect as well. Sure, some fairly radical things must be done but the initiatives must evolve and the market always lags behind the technology - or sometimes even fails to take root. Are you suggesting that everything should stop so everyone would be required to buy a hydrogen snorkle-thang, or whatever the "technology de jour" is, and if there ain't one ready take a chill pill and wait five years? That's not very reasonable.
More reasonable things would be to to focus on conservation, efficiency, diversification, and to stop planting so much damn corn for a failed alternative fuel. I would add funding for NSF and Department of Energy NREL energy and GHG technology work as well. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening overnight - although I share the same sentiments as most everyone on this forum.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
DaveGreenAndRed Posted 3:41 am
13 Jul 2007
Unlike fossil fuels, there is no abundant source of hydrogen that is economical to access.
To get hydrogen we have to burn fossil fuels, or otherwise generate electricity (dams, nukes, etc).
Thus there is always a major environmental cost to hydrogen.
It is not a solution to our environmental problems.
So get over it.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:00 am
13 Jul 2007
If it comes from natural gas, it's effectively no different than burning natural gas as CNG.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars3.png
And if it comes from electricity, the only way it will be greener than Oil is if it comes from considerably green sources of electricity.
California has one of the greenest grids in the Nation (World?)
And even with it's Green-ness, hydrogen from California electricity and water puts up more CO2 than Oil.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
_
So the only ways that you would get hydrogen to greener than oil is by
Making it from natural gas that is already greener than oil.
Squandering renewable energy sources by sacrificing most of the net energy to entropy.
And in both cases, we'd be better off using those resources to offset electricity generation, rather than use it for transportation fuel.
Since carbon-emissions-prevented is a fungible commodity, we need to spend the least ammount of money, to get the most benefit, in the least ammount of time.
And Hydrogen just doesn't fit the bill.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 4:16 am
13 Jul 2007
Hey, Sam: So I use some hyperbole--so sue me--heh-heh-heh-heh. One of the things I consistently see on this particular topic is an awful lot of market prejudice and market territoriality. Others have said likewise.
These techno stooges want their proprietary technology or prejudiced field to win the market competition, so they badmouth all the rest--all too typical. Billions of government subsidies put $ signs in people's eyes, government policies follow the whim of the oligarchy, and valid ideas without the right connections are cut out. Government policies are based on politics not merit. The point made about allowing a pure market to work is correct, but we don't have time for markets to evolve.
I simply want answers that kill--here's some non-hyperbole--KILL Carbon as a fuel source for electricity, heat, and transportation. If we don't, we are all so goddam fucked. (More non-hyperbole.)
Sustainably done, and (before the not-black and not-while 'Parrot' copies and pastes--parrots-- for the 40th time his/her crap about fossil electricity) 'sustainable' means wind and sun only, Hydrogen does these things. As I have said, if I had a hydrolysis unit and a Hydrogen-fueled car, I could fuel it with my waste sustainable energy. I could do the same with a full electric car. Zero Carbon for energy.
I said earlier I think a lot of what the thread's originator said was a useless overreach--pointless for our needs on Earth--but, the basic value of Hydrogen as a carrier is valid. But, as others have said, the narrowly focused pencil-pushing territorial clowns come out every time.
Drop the goddam territoriality, stooges, and get some answers. Otherwise you are a bad parody of "Waiting for Godot":
Well, we're waiting.
What for?
Don't know.
Are you waiting?
Yep.
For what?
Don't know.
.............
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:59 am
13 Jul 2007
So diversification is a noble goal but sometimes you're right, the low hanging fruits to pick and put in our basket sometimes make little sense, such as the oxymoronic "clean coal." As an aside, when I worked with Southwest Research when I was at the Texas air agency, GM was testing "clean coal diesel" on a Series 60 truck diesel engine. This fuel was made from micro-fine coal slurry, not synthetic. So right when I walked by the test cell with 2-inch safety glass it farted, caught on fire, went BLAM and stopped. All the teckies hit the floor.
Another technology bit the dust, I guess. I never heard about it again.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
thedudeabides Posted 5:06 am
13 Jul 2007
I remember my father showing me an article in 1982 that GM and Chrysler were both telling us that hydrogen cars would be the norm in 10 to 20 years. I'm surprised, because normally big corporations don't lie to their customers, so maybe Ford's latest 10 year horizon will be correct this time.
Even though hydrogen is near impossible to store, and uses more electricity to produce than if we simply used that electricity to power an electric car, it's much sexier; and that Shell hydrogen station in Washington DC is very sleek and modern. Plus it's so much more convenient to drive to a hydrogen station than refuel our car in our garage at night, or in our work parking lot. Thank you so much David for posting this piece on corporate science's new alchemy and the junk science behind books like "the hydrogen age."
Can someone explain why David Roberts is working at Grist, and trying to shove this garbage down our throats?!? At least Internet users are savvy enough to have seen through this farce and thoroughly ripped this article apart in the comments section. It gives me hope that Shell and Ford can't keep dangling the hydrogen carrot in front of us and using it to delay technology that's here now. Shame on David, congratulations to the intrepid commenters on grist!
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:30 am
13 Jul 2007
Just to be clear, for the reading challenged: I didn't write the article. Geoffrey Holland did. Nor did I "shove it down your throats," so much as, um, put it on a website for you to read if you so desired.
I published it because it's a perspective we don't hear much around here, and having one's settled opinions challenged periodically is a healthy thing. Plus, I knew it would spark a lively and educational discussion -- and so it has.
Perhaps you should pour yourself a White Russian, light one up, and take a moment to chill out.
grist.org
Permalink
thedudeabides Posted 5:40 am
13 Jul 2007
If you don't argee with the article, then why would you post it? Answer me that one and I'll pour us both a white russian. And, I do apologize for my harsh tone, I just get tired of the same old same old, and grist seems to have a higher standard than this.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 5:46 am
13 Jul 2007
Hey, Sam: No, I was not referring to you as having a proprietary turf to protect/promote--quite the contrary.
However, there are some who, like a mean kid in front of the Wack-a-Mole game, must get a characteristic look in their eye, and start shouting "Get down! GET DOWN!" So whatever it seems to be, Carbon sequestration, agro-fuels, offsets, biomass, nukes, mining Mars, gawd knows, they all seem to depend on, slavishly promote some commodity they wish to monopolize, which will only extend our slave status to Carbon. The central thing that seems to bind them all is the need for a commodity to monopolize.
Just to repeat, I have seen stories of stand-alone hydrolysis units powered by PV, that could be deployed like gas stations to make H2 on site. I have seen stories of a low-pressure tank using a metal medium to bind the H2 to be used in the station and in the vehicle. If we use the other sustainable source--Wind, we add to the conversion capacity/efficiency. No transmission, which I have said again and again, no transportation in huge high-pressure 'rolling bomb' tankers (unlike the one that destroyed the overpass in the San Fransisco Bay area?), which I have said again and again, reduced conversion losses, which I have said again and again, and no huge vast new interconnected infrastructure, which I have said again and again and a-goddam-gain.
I would love to see all the goddam politics of energy put aside and see some answers. We need sustainability and the end of Carbon.
I await more birdshit from the Parrot.
Yeah, Sam, the Stooges WERE funny! NYUK YUK Yuk yuk!
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 6:02 am
13 Jul 2007
"I have seen stories of a low-pressure tank using a metal medium to bind the H2 to be used in the station and in the vehicle."
Yes, they do exist, in lots of flavors, but there are some very practical technical constraints:
Metals are heavy, hydrogen is light. Thus, to get a metal hydride that doesn't add so much weight to the vehicle that you offset whatever efficiency gains you get from hydrogen (not to mention massively driving up gross vehicle weight, with concommittant safety concerns), you tend to favor very low molecular weight metals like Lithium, etc. However, these metals are also the ones that
Have really poor volumetric density, chewing up all the room in the car.
To top it off, all metal hydrides require the addition of energy to dissociate the hydrogen from the metal, and all operate under fairly specific temperature regimes. The ones that take the least energy also require the highest temperatures, at a level that is impractical in a fuel cell powered vehicle.
The ideal metal hydride is lightweight, volume dense, requires minimal energy to dissociate hydrogen and operates at relatively low temperatures. The ideal metal hydride also doesn't exist. Nor does one that's even at the edge of acceptability.
This is not to say that one won't someday be discovered, but we do need to recognize that these limits are all driven by the low molecular weight of hydrogen, and illustrate the fact that the challenges here are ones of basic science, not applied engineering. It is why I made my earlier point that until we figure out the storage problem, all other pieces of the hydrogen economy are irrelevant.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 7:20 am
13 Jul 2007
Hey, Sean: Thanks. While not entirely what I would have wished (obviously), it at least demonstrates knowledge and articulation, and is not full of market promotion and bullshit. I was under the impression this product and technology just needed funding.
The one I have read about is from Stanley Ovshinsky, who invented the NiMH battery. I will find a couple of sites and ask if these ideas have sufficient validity. As written, the report I read was much more positive than you are here, so it will be interesting to know how close or far he is. It would interesting to know if there are worthy competitors.
In the meantime: the ideal metal is light weight, maximum surface area to volume ratio (minimum particle size), matched to the volume of H2 sought, balances reactivity and weight, operates at usable efficient temperature, affordable? Is this all?
Although I am aware of the low molecular weight, why does this affect the limits of the science?
And finally, yes, the weakest link in any of these technologies render it useless and even destructive. Yet we remain tied to some of the worst, with the worst weak links. Ironic, huh?
Could we all say it is time to enforce the rules better?
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 9:00 am
13 Jul 2007
Thanks. The data that I would give you if I still had it was from an analysis I did about 10 years ago when I was a consultant for A.D. Little. I've seen updates since, and while I'm not as intimately involved in the field anymore, my understanding from the periphery is that the core issues haven't changed.
So, with those empty promises aside, the analysis we did all boiled down to a plot where we had temperature of H2 dissociation on one axis and energy required to dissociate said H2 per unit of energy in the hydrogen thus dissociated. This leaves out mass and volume issues, but the interesting thing was that you could then say, OK - here are the temperatures available from a PEM fuel cell. Here are the temperatures available from a Hydrogen-fueled IC engine (which BMW was promoting for a while). Throw on whatever other prime mover you think realistic, but the point is that this limits the temperature that you can get so long as you don't want to burn up the hydrogen you're dissociating just to boost the temperature. You can then align this with the other axis to look at how much energy is actually recoverable from the waste heat in those cycles. Bottom line was that there weren't any materials in the magic region that mapped to what you'd have on a vehicle - and the ones that were close were really bad on that strength/volume ratio.
Sorry for the foggy memory, but that's the jist of the problem.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 10:20 am
13 Jul 2007
Hey, Sean:
Here is the article I read from last year in Mother Earth News on Stanford (I said "Stanley") Ovshinsky's solar Hydrogen proposal. Yeah, it is in the popular media. so it is simultaneously watered down and overblown. His "solid hydride" is his proprietary version of the metal hydride.
Recent history and vehicle performance?:
"...[I]n August 2005, ECD unveiled a modified Toyota Prius with an internal combustion engine powered entirely by hydrogen. In addition to NiMH batteries, the modified Prius used Ovonic solid-state hydrogen storage cylinders, which supplied the fuel. "It gave the equivalent mileage of a gasoline hybrid, but with practically no pollution or climate changing gases at all," he says."
Rather vague, but generally positive. My point has been that if the overall performance is sufficient and if the H2 is produced sustainably, again meaning wind or sun, this sounds pretty good. Even if it needs significant tweaking, still good. Otherwise, it looks like finding the financing for a pilot project somewhere is the major next step.
Anyone have anything constructive to add? Will this work? Did I answer my own request for answers?
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:44 am
13 Jul 2007
Here's some stuff on it.
http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/annual_progress06_storage. ...
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:47 am
13 Jul 2007
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/ ...
In short, it's slow charging, slow discharging (bad horsepower), and expensive.
To some extent, once you start using fancy nanostructured materials, it makes you wonder why not just use a battery.
Permalink
radrerun Posted 6:57 pm
14 Jul 2007
With wind and solar, you have a finite process for producing the means to make energy for many years to come. Granted, the processes to produce the turbines and PVs need ecological tuning, but at least they don't need an energy middleman in order to churn out energy (energy source->hydrogen->power?).
I feel like you guys should be smacking your heads going "Duh, George, can you teach me the reality of environmental alternatives?"
Seriously, stop with the hydrogen posts already. I really thought David Roberts knew better than this.
The skeptics in this thread really shouldn't be given the dubious title of "skeptics," we just know the score and know there are better means to gain energy than the trendy, overinflated claims of the hydrogen trolls.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 11:17 pm
14 Jul 2007
Ah, again, another mean kid at the Wack-a Mole game. You have said yourself that others have already pointed out ad infinitum that Hydrogen is not an energy source, but a carrier, so give the goddam Hell up.
What is needed is open and fair unpoliticized competition among technologies, to drive them forward to solutions to kill off Carbon. Anyone who suggests otherwise is fostering and promoting technological heavy-handed presumptuous censorship. None of you are any sort of Techno Gawd.
This is more of the technological territoriality turf war bullshit: badmouth other technologies so that your pet project looks better. Yeah, squawking "science" while trying to foreclose science.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:16 am
16 Jul 2007
Hydrogen from CNG isn't appreciably any better than CNG
Hydrogen from electricity+water puts up 3-4x more CO2 than raw electricity. (From any source)
Hydrogen from Californian electricity puts up more CO2 than gasoline.
Hydrogen is heavily infrastructure dependant. (So ontop of requiring 4x as many renewable power plants to be green, you'd need hundreds of thousands of hydrogen refueling stations.)
Hydrogen currently has no economical way to store it.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:19 am
16 Jul 2007
Biofuels may be green
Coal to Liquids with Sequestration may be green
But frankly none of them have conclusive evidence so far.
Electricity, CNG, and Diesel are the only ones which you can know, without a doubt, that they reduce emmisions.
On top of which, they are all, also cheaper than gasoline.
Permalink