Slashdot Mirror
Bringing the Hydrogen Economy Back to Reality
An anonymous reader writes "Popular Science has created a list of 9 myths and misconceptions about getting our future hydrogen economy into full swing. If you are hoping your next car purchase will be a hydrogen car, don't hold your breath. Car manufacturers must still make some significant breakthroughs before being ready for primetime, specifically longer lasting fuel cells and better hydrogen storage capabilities."
It's refreshing to see Robert Ballard speak candidly about the shortcomings of a technology he helped to develop. Usually, hype prevails.
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
Let's not forget the multi-trillion dollar Oil Industry. I'm really sure it's going to help this 'new hydrogen' economy along...
Anyone want to chip in to get the Whitehouse a subscription to PopSci?
At present, hydrogen comes chiefly from natural gas. Big Oil (which is also Big Gas) would love a new market that looks green, but isn't (that carbon has to go someplace).
The clearance system sounds logical. It is not. It is completely arbitrary. -- John Bolton
From the article: "Bush and Kerry managed to find one piece of common ground: Both spoke glowingly of a future powered by fuel cells."
So what we've got are two politicians running for national office endorsing a futuristic, Utopian idea that will not likely happen in any of our lifetimes....
This is news?
after all, H2 is the lightest gas around. It'll dissipate immediately at a fueling station or wherever. Gasoline vapors, on the other hand, are heavier than air and tend to pool. That seems much more dangerous to me.
The article was also trying to make a point not just about the danger of leaks, but just of the shear quantity released. Hydrogen is a really small molecule and can be difficult to contain. Apparently, there could be some negative consequences if large amounts of it were to leak into the atmosphere.
Politicians push a technology that makes them look "green". The pledge of support is backed by a seemingly large pile of money (well, at least enough to fund the Iraq expedition for almost 10 days).
Scientists and engineers divide into a couple camps: those who warn about the technology's shortcomings (branded naysayers) and those who stand to profit from the research dollars (often working for the established industries).
The established industries such as the US auto manufacturers get to delay practical changes for a few years because the Next Big Thing That Will Save Us(tm) will be available Real Soon Now(tm).
Finally, the technology fails to live up to the hype giving the public one more reason to distrust scientists and engineers.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Propane is odorless too- so they add odor to it for consumer sales, thus we get our nice onion smell when there is a propane leak.
BTW- if large amounts of hydrogen were to leak into the atmosphere, you might get an explosion someplace, but far more likely is that it would rise into the Ozone layer creating oxygen and rain.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
If fuel cells are still having problems, a decent alternative should be hybrid diesels.
Diesels are already very efficient. Hybrid diesels would be even more so. Esp if you have regenerative braking.
Interesting diesel options:
1) Bio-diesel (waste cooking oil, palm or soya oil).
2) diesel-water emulsions (e.g. Shell's Aquadiesel licensed from Gunnerman's A-55 fuels/Clean Fuels Tech).
Regarding the quantity of H2 leaked, in the article the concern mentioned was that it would combine with oxygen in the upper atmosphere to form high level clouds. These clouds could then could contribute to global warming, which would seemingly defeat the purpose of going to H2. Your own prediction of ozone depletion wouldn't exactly be a windfall for the environment (or the fair-skinned) either.
I know this isn't sexy but I'm convinced that this is the real way out of greenhouse and oil problems:
E85
It's an 85%/15% ethanol-gas mix. Outfitting a car to use it is cheap. There are a couple problems with it.
1. You're still using oil from the ground.
2. It still makes CO2.
3. You've got to produce the ethanol.
Still you can:
1. just keep using oil. I know that's not popular but e85 effectively multiplies the efficiency by a factor of more than 5. Also, oil isn't going to run out in 10 years if you understand the concept of "proven reserves". Even if you believe in peak oil theory, it staves it off by a good long while.
2. a lot of the CO2 produced is fixed the previous growing season by the plants.
3. producing ethanol is a net energy gain since the lion's share of the energy comes from the sun in the first place. Still we currently don't produce nearly enough of it to roll it out nation wide. That's just a matter of making a market for it. The good folks at Oak Ridge national labs are working on engineering plants that grow faster and produce more material to break down into ethanol. They're also working on bacteria that can do the fermenting on more materials. (sorry, no link. Too lazy.)
It's not perfect but it's a damn sight better than H2 and it's available on a limited basis now. I can go fill up on it today if I want. Best of all in my mind, this could boost the agribusiness industry to a point where farm subsidies are done away with for good.
Blaze a trail to the New World
Certainly adding odor would allow easier detection of leaks. My greater point is that in enclosed spaces hydrogen would likely be just as if not more dangerous than gasoline. I am not trying to be alarmist or say that it is too dangerous, but that in their zeal to promote it some proponents of H2 (as with any new technology) pretend as if there would be no danger at all.
Wouldn't the same danger exist in an enclosed space with a running gasoline engine? I know my garage in my house has CO detectors hooked up to fans for just this sort of problem.
Regarding the quantity of H2 leaked, in the article the concern mentioned was that it would combine with oxygen in the upper atmosphere to form high level clouds. These clouds could then could contribute to global warming, which would seemingly defeat the purpose of going to H2. Your own prediction of ozone depletion wouldn't exactly be a windfall for the environment (or the fair-skinned) either.
Don't forget that certain types of electric engines also PRODUCE ozone. I personally doubt those clouds would last very long- clouds have a tendency to come back to earth as rain- but I think you fail to see the main reason to switch to hydrogen. The reason to switch to hydrogen has NOTHING to do with it being environmentally better- and everything to do with being POLITICALLY better (as in, getting us out of the quagmire that the middle east has turned into).
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
It was fun reading it when I was a kid and dreaming about flying cars...but come on now!
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
The article states that 71% of the US grid electricity comes from fosil fuels. Unless I'm mistaken it's more like this.
coal 50%
petroleum 3%
gas 8.5%
nuclear 18.5%
hydro 8.4%
hippy stuff 0.2%
"nonutility" (?) 11.2%
That's like 61% fosil. How off are my numbers?
Blaze a trail to the New World
THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY CAN RUN ON RENEWABLE ENERGY
If any economy can, hydrogen fuel can. What's the alternative, exactly? An endless supply of non-renewable energy? That'd be a contradiction of terms, no?
MASS PRODUCTION WILL MAKE HYDROGEN CARS AFFORDABLE
Maybe this should be "more affordable" - and of course mass production will make them more affordable. What will really make hydrogen cars affordable though is the boundlessly rising cost of running fossil-fuel-burning vehicles.
A gallon of gasoline contains about 2,600 times the energy of a gallon of hydrogen
A gallon of hydrogen at what pressure? This statement is meaningless.
The most promising of these technologies is the gas-electric hybrid vehicle
Until we run out of gasoline, that is.
"If we had a wider and more diverse set of energy sources, we'd be more robust, more stable,"
Alright, this one I agree with!
If all our cars were hydrogen cars we wouldn't have to hold our breath.
Seattle has the largest fleet of hybrid diesel buses in the world, but transportation officials are finding that the expected fuel efficiency isn't there. It seems the regular diesel engine buses have a slightly better mpg performance while still having with very low emissions.
During a check on fuel efficiency in September, the hybrid buses (which are equipped with the regenerative braking system) were getting 3.75 mpg on average while the older model diesels were getting 3.8 mpg.
The article does go on to say, though, that this may be because the city uses the hybrid buses for longer routes where the diesel engine gets more use. Plus, stricter federal emission standards are affecting fuel efficiency.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
Well, duh. But I wasn't talking about running engines, I was talking about leaks and the probability of an explosion. My point was that while in open air hydrogen would probably dissipate quickly enough to not explode (given the leak was small enough) but in an enclosed space you will be more likely to get an explosive mixture from a hydrogen leak than a liquid gasoline leak.
Don't forget that certain types of electric engines also PRODUCE ozone. I personally doubt those clouds would last very long- clouds have a tendency to come back to earth as rain- but I think you fail to see the main reason to switch to hydrogen. The reason to switch to hydrogen has NOTHING to do with it being environmentally better- and everything to do with being POLITICALLY better (as in, getting us out of the quagmire that the middle east has turned into).
Do you know another name for ground level ozone? It's smog and it won't replenish the ozone layer. As far as the clouds go, we are talking much higher up than rain clouds. Ever seen a jet contrail just hang out up there for hours on end? I think that maybe you missed that we aren't talking about a one time leak but the perpetual leakiness of a national hydrogen distribution system. The clouds in question would be continuously fed.
You are right about the motivation being political. Hydrogen seems better environmentally and it seems to depend less on the Middle East, but in reality just switching to hydrogen would change little. The most readily available source of hydrogen is from cracking hydrocarbons. This results in the same net carbon release as burning it while maintaining our dependence on fossil fuels. Electrolysis would work as well but again will likely rely in large part on fossil fuels to generate the electricity. For anything to really change alternative energy sources need to be developed. Hydrogen is not an energy source like fossil fuels or nuclear, but rather a means of transmission like the electrical grid.
It would also help if there were a supply of hydrogen for the cars to use. Currently this supposedly clean fuel is being generated by processes on natural gas that are actually extremely wasteful of energy and also highly polluting. They just move the pollution and energy waste away from the car itself. But the user still pays for the wasted energy, and everyone breathing the air pays for the pollution.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
On the other hand, if we get solar hydrogen either by algal production or artificial chlorophyll-like photolytic molecules, we could get rid of the market for most fossil fuels.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
The oil industry has about as much say in how hydrogen is going to play as car companies have in the airline industry. The automakers might like to ban airplanes so everyone has to use a car, but it will never happen because public demand on the issue is just too damned strong. Hydrogen is the same way.
The problem with hydrogen is that it isn't cheaper then oil. Period. The day that changes is the day the oil industry is steam rolled. The energy market is deadly serious to all economies. Energy trumps everything, even the industries that supply it. Big mean oil might want to keep the world running on the black stuff until there is not a drop left, but they are the only ones, and they are only a whisper of a voice compared to all of the other industries and special interest groups that simply want cheap power. So, even if the system was so massively corrupt that an industry could snuff a competing industry with money, oil's paltry sum compared to the collective will of every single other industry still results in the cheaper energy source winning.
Power is the life blood of the economy. Automakers have a direct interest to see a fuel source that is cleaner and cheaper, thus avoiding having to build cars to meet stringent environmental standards, and in general encourage people to drive more cars. All other industries have a stake in this as well. If your industry uses any sort of transportation, then you want something cheaper then oil if it exists. Nothing has such a dramatic net effect on the economy like the price of oil.
My point is simple. Oil companies might not be clawing over each other to build a cheap and safe hydrogen economy, but everyone else is. When I say everyone, I mean EVERYONE. Any moderately sized corporation that has any technology that might be related hydrogen fuel cells and ever tries a few long shots has a hydrogen program of some sort in the works. Hell, I worked at a company that specialized in making the massive belts that go on a paper machine that was working on hydrogen fuel cells. Picture that: a company in a declining industry that specializes in making parts for paper machines had a project to try and improve hydrogen fuel cells, simply because they had a little expertise in fabric, and thought that perhaps a certain fabric could form the basis of a cell. They were not doing this out of the goodness of their heart. They just saw the massive amount of money that goes to first guy to replace oil and wanted a piece.
I personally wouldn't worry. If you know anything about hydrogen fuel cells, you know that there is a massive amount of work going into right now even as we speak. It might take a decade to get something that everyone agrees is good, but a decade is a very short amount of time.
(sorry, no link. Too lazy.)
Too bored. Here's the link:
ORNL
Google also turned up this gem:
Canadian Agricultural Energy End-Use Data and Analysis Centre (Ethanol Page)
Enjoy!
Who's paying for this delay in government progress toward freedom from terrorist-loving oil producers? The US taxpayer, that's who. In the mean time, GM and DMC have gotten with the program and decided to produce hybrid drivetrains, and most if not all hybrid systems can be adapted to become partially grid-powered plug-in hybrids with the addition of bigger batteries, different energy-management algorithms and a charging system. Such cars would not require wiring beyond a standard extension cord until their all-electric range got upwards of 30 miles, while even short all-electric range could eliminate an enormous fraction of motor fuel consumption.
In other words, industry is about to do incrementally what the current administration appears to be trying to prevent by demanding all-or-nothing leaps.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
I don't know if I should mod this insightful of funny.
According to the article:
A better solution to global warming might be to hold off building hydrogen cars, and instead harness fuel cells to generate electricity for homes and businesses.
This article then goes on and continues to destroy hydrogen as save all to the energy and environmental crisis affecting the world today. (While I might consider it a wastefully inefficient economic crisis I will call it that to avoid confusion of the important part of this post.)
The real question: What niches in the future economy do you see hydrogen fuel cells filling?
Personally I see the greatest advantages of hydrogen technology in supporting and storage of energy from other alternative sources of energy like solar and wind power. These sources are traditionally rural solutions to energy problems. By creating a source of storing this energy for continuous use these energy solutions are much easier to forsee as economic solutions to the energy cunch.
As for fuel cell vehicles, they are limited in thier uses due to low accelleration, limitted fuel cell range, and availibility of hydrogen infastructure. The best solution is to fit the technology to the vehicles used. Delivery vehicles such as mail/delivery vehicles and public transportation are obvious uses for hydrogen technology. UPS and the Federal Postal Service should be jumping over each other to adopt a location to hydrogen fueled vehicles. One large scale hydrogen prodution facility at a post office or UPS distribution hub, and WALLA; biggest public relations coup ever.
Any other niche markets? Comments? UPS VP's waiting to hire me?
--"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
Sustainability and energy independence essay
check out this presentation on hydrogen safety - http://www.fuelcells.org/info/HydrogenandtheLaw.pd f
people tend to forget that gasoline is a dangerous fuel, yet we live and work around hundreds of stations nationwide. hydrogen can be a very safe fuel, there just needs to be safety codes and standards put in place to ensure it.
- It currently produces only 1.34 BTU of ethanol for each BTU of fossil inputs. This means each gallon is about 75% fossil energy.
- The tax subsidy for ethanol is currently $1.90/gallon, or about $7.60/gallon of non-fossil energy. (And you thought petroleum was expensive!)
- Even if all the corn grown in the USA was converted to ethanol, it wouldn't feed our motor fuel needs.
Taxpayer funds currently devoted to ethanol subsidies should be immediately diverted to programs which actually reduce petroleum consumption, such as hybrids.Sustainability and energy independence essay
Nobody is using any new energy alternative as long as Bush is the president. Don't interrupt his get-rich scheme please.
Why should taxpayers pay for hybrid research? Let the car companies do that. If anything, the government should be funding research on techniques to grow more starch-rich plants and engineer more efficient bacteria. In fact, they're doing just that.
Grain isn't the only source either. Municipal waste and switchgrass are other places to get it. There is also research being done to produce ethanol from cellulose which will let you pretty much plant weeds and be able to harvest them for fuel.
Blaze a trail to the New World
Hydrogen is only explosive in certain concentrations, though true enough, even if you don't reach that concentration or exceed it, you can still get nasty fires. Considering the applications for hydrogen though, ie tanks refueling etc, most sources would be outside, greatly alleviating such threats.
As for the clouds, they can't do more then a fixed change, while hydrocarbons can accumulate giving a pretty massive change once they manage to run through there positive foodback loop cycles enough times. Also I can imagine there are some strategies possible in trying to drag some water out of the stratosphere again, ie throw dust particles there, this also increases albedo and drops temperature again.
The fossil fuel argument is disingenuous, and I really don't care seeing it. So yes, you be using fossil fuels initially to produce it, but would you always? Hell no, so using it as argument is superfluous, it doesn't matter on the longer time scale cause fossil fuels will be gone by then.
Quickshot
I have to agree, almost none of the points they brought up were anything in the way of technological show stoppers. Pretty much the only problems were problems with long lasting fuel cells, problems creating a fueltank which can store enough fuel and some negative effects on the climate via high air cloud formation, which can be somewhat compensated for and remain a fixed factor, not one that you can make worse and worse as you burn more fossil fuel each year.
Quickshot
Well, I have always been a fan of Gasohol and Biodiesel.
/. needs spell check
I wonder why they did not mention that as a viable alternative fuel-source. It seems that, under Jimmy Carter, a bill was passed that exempted taxes on such fuels. So, it would be a little cheaper to use these. Although you might have to modify your engine to get the same gas-effecientcy.
On another note, IIRC, natural gas and gasoline are also ordorless and colorless, but they add something to them to make them smell like that. The same should be doable for hydrogen.
FTFA: "The Caltech study grossly overstated hydrogen leakage, says Assistant Secretary David Garman of the Department of Energys Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. But whatever its volume, hydrogen added to the atmosphere will combine with oxygen to form water vapor, creating noctilucent cloudsthose high, wispy tendrils you see at dawn and dusk. The increased cloud cover could accelerate global warming."
I don't think so. Leaked hydrogen will quickly rise to the top of the atmosphere, where it will be blown away by solar wind before it has had time to react with oxygen. The result from splitting water and letting a part of the produced H2 leak would be to increase the oxygen content in the atmosphere. Very bad.
Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
Excluding the odor-detection issue, gasoline is much more dangerous. Here is a test not to try at home: pour out a gallon of gasoline on the floor of a closed garage, wait a bit, and then turn on an ignition source. Now try the same thing with a gallon of liquid hydrogen. You would get a much bigger boom from the gasoline. H2 molecules are so small and light that they are very difficult to contain. Even modern houses and garages are relatively pourous for hydrogen.
-a
Now, I'm a fan of NOT using fossil fuels at an increasing rate until we've stuffed all the waste into our atmosphere.
So, let's instead look at some practical, short-term alternatives that will forestall the atmospheric waste issues, then also fix the long term.
Does this mean power from wind, tides, bio-gas (rotting waste from dumps, excrement, etc), solar collectors of various technologies, etc? Does this mean SIMPLIFYING our technological processes to use less energy to produce consumer goods? Does this mean actively refurbishing AND recycling things rather than simply throwing them away and consuming new things? Yes, all that and more!
The Kyoto accord makes sense; Making the planet uninhabitable long-term does not.
As the saying goes, "Think globally, act locally." Let's all "take a deep breath" on the glitzy science issues and look for the practical outcomes before we rush into things that actually don't work at the global level let alone the local level.
Looking at space, radio, science and computing from a 'down-under' amateur enthusiast perspective.
"you would be using fossil fuels initially to produce it, but would you always?"
If you're talking about electrolysis, forget about it unless you have an endless supply of free electricity. Hydrogen from electrolysis makes a very inefficient storage battery. Now if you ARE assuming free electricity (from fusion maybe?) then I say go ahead and build your hydrogen highway.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
You mean consumers should push the car companies. This is already happening. I'm all for a very small CO2 tax but I have yet to hear about an instance where government intervention with the free market has yielded good results.
Oh, and if you think that a CO2 tax will be exclusively used for any one particular cause, you've got another thing coming. It all goes into one big pot (with some few exceptions) and congress allocates it where it sees fit. a billion taken in from CO2 taxes does not mean 1 billion spent on plug-in hybrid infrastructure.
Unless we ramp up a whole lot of nuclear plants, plugin hybrids will put a lot of strain on the electric grid, or make a lot of CO2, or both. That means making CO2 from coal rather than gas. There's some advantage there but it's not a clear win.
Let the government provide incentive to mitigate the external cost of pollution via a CO2 tax. The free market will take care of the rest. Perhaps fund some research but the utility companies will do it more efficiently than the government ever will.
Blaze a trail to the New World
I think electric hybrids will be the way to go short-term - electric motors for city driving, & some sort of combustion engine (petrol, E85, ethnol, gas, hydrogen..) for longer runs. If you can get a reasonable battery storage in there, you can probably charge from the mains overnight with cheap off peak electricity and do short daily city runs without turning the combustion engine on at all!
There will be a chance also to soak up cheaper off-peak power that renewables like wind generate, as the proportion of that sort of power on the grid goes up..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
Why are we persuing hydrogen fuel cells at all? From the article, they sound like a terrible idea. They're promoted because they're "greener" than fossil fuels and the only exhaust is water vapour, but the article states that production process of extracting hydrogen fuel from natural gas would lead to an increase in carbon dioxide emmisions and fossil fuel use.
Can someone give me the definitive reason for the drive to get fuel cells off the ground? Is it purely because it would allow us to centralize the production of harmful waste in hydrogen extraction plants, rather than distributing it across the world by burning fossil fuels in cars and using chemical batteries as we currently do? Or is it purely because hydrogen fuel cells would be simply better than batteries in terms of power output and lifespan? We'll never get more energy out of hydrogen than we put into extracting it, so what's the point in using it when we can simply use existing technology that is apparently not as wasteful? Is there any environmental argument for the fuel cell at all?
I'm with you on the the nuclear thing, but I'm not so sure that coal powerplants feeding partially-electric cars are such a bad thing compared to the status quo. (Anything you can do to change the mix of generating sources changes the CO2 emission from grid-connected transport right along with it; this is easier than re-engineering the vehicle fleet.)
Where did I put that envelope... ah, here. Suppose you have a car that gets 30 MPG, gasoline is 6.167 pounds/gallon and is 12/14 carbon by weight; 12 pounds carbon converts to 44 pounds CO2, so the car would emit 0.646 pounds CO2 per mile. Suppose instead that you have an IGCC powerplant running at 40% efficiency (that's 8530 BTU/kwh), burning pure carbon at 14,000 BTU/lb. It emits 2.23 lb CO2/kwh (pessimistic, coal has considerable volatile matter). If it feeds a plug-in hybrid consuming 250 WH/mile at the plug, that's 0.558 lb/mile. That's not spectacularly better, but it's still an improvement.
You can do much better than the coal-plant-charged PIH with hybrids like the Honda Insight, but if you start putting wind or solar power into the car-charging mix the plug-in hybrid is going to kill any petroleum-powered vehicle for CO2 emissions.
Sustainability and energy independence essay