Email This Story
Share This Story
Add to Bookmarks
Printer Friendly Version
70 Comments
by Chris Nelder, Energy & Capital
I'm going to make a prediction today: you will never drive a hydrogen fueled car. Although hydrogen does indeed have some benefits in certain applications, it's my task today to separate the reality of useful fuel cells from the hydrogen hype. That may seem like a bold statement to you now, but by the end of this article, you'll understand why.
Calculating the EROI of a hydrogen fuel cycle requires a good many assumptions about how it will be generated, transported, stored and consumed. So different sets of assumptions can produce quite different results. In the aforementioned example of home-based hydrogen generation, where the hydrogen is generated and consumed in a single site, losses along the way are low. But when it is used in a vehicle, losses are much higher.
Much has been made of the concept of a "hydrogen economy," because it offers the possibility of a portable fuel that can be generated from any number of sources and consumed without greenhouse gas emissions.
That's a major win-win against the twin devils of peak oil and global warming, and as such it has attracted the support of an unlikely alliance including environmentalists, technologists, politicians and automakers.
It's important to realize that hydrogen is not a fuel source; it's an energy carrier. Hydrogen does not exist freely in the universe; it's always bound to something else. So it takes an investment of energy to free hydrogen from its existing arrangement and make it available as a stored fuel.
The hydrogen fuel cycle goes like this: hydrogen is liberated from some source, compressed or liquefied for storage and transport, then "burned" in a device called a fuel cell, in which energy is captured from the hydrogen as it combines with oxygen from the air to form water. The captured energy can be used to power electric motors and generators, and the only emissions are pure water.
It's an elegant vision, and has captured the imagination of such luminaries as Stan Ovshinsky, wunderkind founder of the advanced energy company Ovonics (Energy Conversion Devices, ticker symbol ENER). Proponents imagine a future wherein the original hydrogen is generated by the electrolysis of water, using electricity generated from renewable sources. Thus the hydrogen fuel cycle would begin and end with plain water, and would still offer portability, as well as a basis for a distributed clean, green energy cycle.
They envision homeowners generating their own renewable power (using solar, geothermal, micro-hydro, or whatever they've got) and turning it into hydrogen that they can store on-site, then consume in their hydrogen-powered cars or in the fuel cell stack that powers their home.
Unfortunately, the vision breaks down when we analyze the energy return on investment (EROI) of the process. According to the second law of thermodynamics, when energy is converted from one form into another, a little energy is lost in the process, usually as heat. Essentially, every time you convert energy, you pay a tax.
ROI: The Hydrogen Buzzkill
Calculating the EROI of a hydrogen fuel cycle requires a good many assumptions about how it will be generated, transported, stored and consumed. So different sets of assumptions can produce quite different results. In the aforementioned example of home-based hydrogen generation, where the hydrogen is generated and consumed in a single site, losses along the way are low. But when it is used in a vehicle, losses are much higher.
Let's explore a typical calculation of the EROI of the hydrogen fuel cycle for cars:
1. Suppose we generate the hydrogen by the electrolysis of water. First we must "rectify" the grid's AC electricity into DC, at a cost of about 2% to 3% of the energy contained in the hydrogen.
2. Now we can electrolyze the water, but that process is only about 70% efficient, so we lose another 30% there.
3. Now we have hydrogen gas, but it takes up a lot of space. We could compress it to around 10,000 psi to make it fit in a reasonably sized tank, which costs another 15%. But even then, it would only have about one-fifth of the energy density of gasoline, and the pressurized tank needed to store it is very heavy, large and expensive. So if we wanted to use it in a vehicle, we would have to liquefy the hydrogen by cooling it down to about -253°C and keep it in a pressurized, insulated container instead. This process would cost another 30% to 40% of the energy in the hydrogen.
4. We lose some more during storage because hydrogen boils off above -253°C, so it's very difficult to keep it from escaping its container. In vehicles, about 3% to 4% of the hydrogen boils off every day. And at least 10% of the hydrogen will boil off during delivery and storage.
5. Then we burn the hydrogen in a vehicle's fuel cell at an efficiency of about 50% (for a proton membrane fuel cell stack).
6. And finally, we lose another 10% of the energy that makes it to the electric motors driving the wheels, because they are only about 90% efficient.
7. In the end, about 80% of the original energy generated in order to produce the hydrogen is lost, for an EROI of 0.25. Since it doesn't pay to have an energy regime with an EROI of less than one, hydrogen cars seems a permanent improbability.
Carbon Emissions Persist
There's another dirty little secret about hydrogen that is rarely mentioned by hydrogen hypers: the vast majority of hydrogen manufactured today is not made from the hydrolysis of water, because of the energy inputs needed. Instead, it's made from natural gas, because it's a ready and easily exploited feedstock for hydrogen production that can be transported more easily in liquid form. And that means that the hydrogen production does, in fact, produce carbon dioxide emissions, effectively nullifying the environmental benefits of fuel cells.
When natural gas is the feedstock, as it is today, the hydrogen fuel cycle amounts to going around the block to get to the back door, for nothing.
A final problem with the concept of a "hydrogen economy" is that we'd essentially need a whole new infrastructure for it, from "wells to wheels." Nothing in our current energy infrastructure is compatible with hydrogen.
A major reason for that is that it's the smallest element, so it wants to escape from just about anything you use to contain it. Tanks, pipes, valves, and fittings all along the way leak constantly. For another, it's highly reactive, and makes metal brittle and prone to leakage. The storage and transport losses can be considerably worse than in the above example.
Starting Over
To build a "hydrogen economy," we would need to start over with everything. Hundreds of thousands of miles of pipeline, 90,000 new pumps at service stations, 210 million vehicles—everything.
Given what we know about the peak oil situation, one wonders just how much of the remaining fossil fuel energy would be needed to replace all that stuff. Let's just say it would be a sizable chunk, a chunk we'd probably be better off using for food and shelter, and making solar panels and wind turbines.
And then there is the old chicken-and-egg problem: who's going to pony up the hundreds of billions (actually probably closer to the low trillions) of dollars to build all that infrastructure until the cars are in the showroom, and who's going to put hydrogen cars into a sufficient number of showrooms until the customer has easy access to a refueling station?
There are a few other alternative hydrogen infrastructures, but each has daunting challenges associated with it:
• Hydrogen could theoretically be produced on-board a vehicle from liquid methanol or gasoline, but it's going to be difficult, inefficient, and expensive. Big R&D money needed for that direction.
• Hydrogen could be produced at local centers, but then we're back to the aforementioned problems of storage, transfer, and the lack of infrastructure.
• It could also be produced right at the fueling station, from methane gas or from water via electrolysis, but the cost of building such stations will be enormous and the infrastructure needs would be great (either to ship natural gas to the stations or to upgrade the grid to handle all that extra electricity). And again, who's going to make that investment before the cars are there?
Now, although it doesn't make sense as a transportation solution, in the right applications hydrogen can be a useful storage system. For example, a large commercial building equipped with a solar system and a fuel cell stack could generate, store, and use much of its own power with minimal losses along the way and no emissions. In such applications, hydrogen is smart. Consequently, I believe the future is bright for companies that focus on that market segment.
But you will never drive a hydrogen car.
Chris Nelder is a solar designer in Marin County, California and a contributing editor for EnergyandCapital.com as well as GreenChipStocks.com; an investment advisory service that focuses solely on renewable energy and organic food markets.
The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.
Add Your Comment
70 Reader Comments
|
August 6, 2007
Hydrocarbon fuels (eg. gasoline) have that higher energy density than compressed hydrogen because they have carbon atoms as the BINDER, keeping those hydrogen atoms tightly bound. So what if we went for an AMMONIA ECONOMY (NH3), using nitrogen as the binder instead of the greenhouse-causing carbon? How problematic would an ammonia economy be?
|
|
|
August 6, 2007
FCVs make little sense compared to BEVs (battery electric vehicles). Nothing states this better than the morphology of FCVs themselves. Namely, they're evolving into BEVs as the batteries get bigger and the fuel cell stacks get smaller. There are tremendous technical hurdles to overcome with the hydrogen economy. There are so many losses in the system that you really have to ask yourself "why not just use the energy that I'm investing in hydrogen production?" The energy it takes to make one kg of hydrogen by electrolysis can push and EV many, many miles down the road. EVs are simply more efficient and vastly cheaper than FCVs. They always will be, too.
|
|
|
August 6, 2007
I am tired of reading sophist diatribes about how inefficient it can be to use previously untapped renewable free energy. Any gain is, of course, net positive. I am fed up with people telling me a "dirty secret" of hydrogen is that it can made from fossil fuel. Hydrogen can also be made from Chris Nelder and Joseph Romm, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. The future I and others envision leaves fossil fuel behind. It uses a mix of advanced energy technologies, including renewable hydrogen as an energy carrier, for both mobile and stationary applications. Anyone who cares to follow the progress of hydrogen energy can clearly see that fuel cells are steadily becoming more affordable and breakthroughs in hydrogen storage are now occurring monthly. If Chris Nelder wants to stand on the tracks with Romm and pretend the train isn't coming, that's fine with me. |
|
|
August 6, 2007
People told us it couldn't be done, but we produce and use Hydrogen at our off grid home as a back up fuel source.
www.siei.org |
|
|
August 6, 2007
Great article from a new reader on this site. Completely agree that it takes too much energy to produce... Not a good enough ROI. Look no further than what companies like Tesla and Think motors are producing. It's a no brainer. |
|
|
August 6, 2007
As a member of Green Chip Stocks remind me to avoid the advice of Chris Nelder. He is really not paying attention nor is he able to see the forest for the trees. Wow, what a disappointing article and how short sighted and arrogant can a person be. Chris you are problably the guy who told me back in 1978 that computers were going to take all the jobs and no one would have anyway to earn an income.
Chris, wake up! Hydrogen is not difficult to make,store, and distribute. You are listening to the Oil backed propaganda that has the country dazed and confused. Please refrain from supporting this thinking. |
|
|
August 7, 2007
I have 15 years of experience with hydrogen. It can be made safe. I would rather drive a hydrogen car than a gasoline car, but the density issue will always be the problem. While a matrix may be used for storing hydrogen, transmission will not be helped. I agree EROEI is a bizarre terminology. Round-trip efficiency is the proper term. As stated above, all round-trip efficiencies for storage devices will be less than one and is not the reason to delete an option. Only by comparing the round-trip efficiency with other options does this measure make sense. |
|
|
August 7, 2007
Interesting article, One thing Hydrogen is a fuel that could be used in internal combustion engines and burned, not just used in fuel cells. One thing that I did notice is the fact that hydrogen is the smallest gas molecule (used to determine the slightest leakage of pressure vessels) is not mentioned much in these discussions and the issue of leakage into uncontrolled areas along with the fire hazard. Battery development has been ongoing for a while and progress has been limited. It would be short sighted to assume that the energy density of batteries will greatly improve in the near furture and ignore the eneragy density of stored hydrogen.
|
|
|
August 7, 2007
Alternative scenarios to this article are not hard to find. Hydrogen liberated from biofeedstocks by microbial action (very small energy input) is stored in engineered nano-materials that can release the hydrogen with a small temperature increase. This material (stored in both large tanks at service stations and in vehicles) uses currently available infrastructure (trucks and underground tanks). Such technologies have already been demonstrated. The technologies described by the author are the ones that were demonstrated in the distant past. We may be able to do much better than that!
|
|
|
August 7, 2007
ROI: The Electricity Buzzkill Using EROI to measure a transmission and distribution system is downright bizarre. In fact, even in your example it seems to me that you've measured efficiency, not EROI, which is what we are interested in anyway. And by definition, total system efficiency (with respect to the desired outputs) is always going to be less than 1. |
|
|
August 7, 2007
This conversation is a bit unrealistic. First of all there is a tremendous competition going on to develop each stage of every transportation energy alternative and remarkable strides are being made in hydrogen storage (solid state storage), sensing (low-cost, super-senstitive) and fuel cell technology (longer life, more efficient). Tremendous strides are also being made in battery technology (20 year lithium titanate cells), and electric motor technology (neodymium w/ 95%+ efficiencies). And by the way those are not the only technologies in the game. Super capacitor technology, another electric storage technology continues to advance. Meanwhile materials-science produces breakthroughs at a furious pace. Vehicles constructed of light-weight, super strong materials may require much less fuel to drive the same distance that we do in our gas-guzzlers. And these are all conventional technologies. There is some very unconventional stuff being researched and developed. Many of the technologies which we now consider to be totally obvious such AC electrical power were once thought so totally absurd that such luminaries as Edison said it could never happen. So I think people who claim to be in the know should be regarded with a bit of suspicion. Let's face it, we do not yet know which technologies win this race to the future. May well be a combination. But we had better not be using our influence to discourage investors from supporting any of them. The survivability of the people of this planet is on the line.
|
|
|
August 8, 2007
I'm surprised that Iceland is not mentioned. they are useing geothermal power for the conversion process, and it works. However IMHO solarPV, solar thermal, or wind generation on individual homes is the only way to delink from the big money operaters who now are legally permitted to steal from us. We don't need to stop research on hydrogen or any other future energy source, but we need to find a way to get renewable energy to the masses, one roof at a time, and the sooner the better. Get Exxon out of my pocket to pay 400 million retirement bonuses.
|
|
|
August 8, 2007
Any bets on the first "H State" in the U.S. My money is on California..... any takers? Galen Swain |
|
August 8, 2007
The storage of liquid H2 provides few benefits over hogh pressure tanks. The density of LH2 is about 4 pcf. The density of 10ksi gaseous H2 is 2.6 pcf. There are GM tanks which only weigh 8x the weight of the H2 inside. The volume of a LH2 tank must also include the insulation vacuum spheres. These type of tanks also have to vent the H2 due to the heat leak into the tank which boils the H2. Then what do we do with the gaseous H2. The H2 tank would probably be one sphere because of the vacuum vessel and the need top minimize area to volume. Spherical tanks the size needed would be very difficult to carry in a passenger car. Would you like a garage with a car venting H2 under your house, office building etc. H2 forms explosive mixtures over a very wide range of concentrations in air. LH2 may thus be too dangerous and occupies about the same or more volume of tank as 10ksi HP tanks |
|
|
August 8, 2007
A friend, who years ago had done a high school experiment splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, told me he thought he could use this principle to modify a car engine to produce and immediately use and run on that hydrogen. I searched on google, blog talk radio and yahoo groups "watercar" and "water fuel", etc., and found that many experimenters are building this kind of hydrogen "on demand" boost to gasoline or other fuel. The hydrogen makes the gas burn more completely and more efficiently, thus boosting miles per gallon and reducing emissions. This process eliminates both transportation and storage of hydrogen. Let's look into this......
|
|
|
August 8, 2007
<quote> Starting Over What a bunch of baloney. Houses in a hydrogen economy are likely to be powered by fuel cells fed by gas pipes. The fuel cell delivers light, and hot water AND HEAT (which is often the more valuable product), and can operate air-conditioning by thermal or electrical principles as "co-generation". They Hydrogen Economy homes are this near 100% efficient. Neighborhood or home compressor pumps would be normal. That's AFTER a mature Hydrogen Economy. A national pipeline grid paralleling the Interstate highways, which we already own, would store all the H2 we want to store without large tank farms. http://hydrogentruth.info/spreadsheets/H2Pipelines.html http://hydrogentruth.info/spreadsheets/H2Pipelines.xls http://hydrogentruth.info/spreadsheets/H2Pipelines.sxc Three pipeline diameters are computed and various pressures are applied to determine the hydrogen storage in the pipelines. At 1000 psi the national grid would have 5 billion kilograms of Hydrogen in 12" diameter pipe, and at 2000 psi there would be 9.65 billion kilograms. A scuba diver straps on a 3000 psi tank on his back, comparing the pressure risk to something familiar. Closer to most people, the hydraulic brake lines on your car see pressures up to 5,000 psi on a regular basis. At 2000 psi, 12" diameter pipeline grid, hat's 48 kilograms of H2 for every SUV, car, pickup and van in America, enough to drive them all from NYC to Los Angeles if they had electric-drive fuel cells. Fatter pipes would hold more gas, and Europe (far ahead of the backwards US) has already certified 3,750 psi epoxy-fiber hydrogen pipelines, while the US limits H2 pipelines to 100 psi along highways with overcrossings. The Hydrogen infrastructure is WORTH BUILDING for the sake of your kids and grandkids benefit, but need not be built instantly all at once. You don't have to even begin until after you grow a conscience and get therapy for the sociopathic tendancies to make excuses for destroying the future.
|
|
|
August 8, 2007
<quote> Carbon Emissions Persist What "happens today" is not a "Hydrogen Economy", is it? Extrapolation of today is not valid, but is intended to deceive. Hydrogen is made from Natural Gas for historical reason, because 50% of all hydrogen made is intended for the Haber-Bosch ammonial process fueled by natural gas long-term contracts and established industrial investments. Another 40% of all Hydrogen made is used by OILY INC for upgrading the octane rating of your gasoline in the hydro-cracking process. 90% of all hydrogen made today thus comes from exising infrastructure, demonstrating that one full third of the hydrogen infrastructure already exists in place, and there are millions of man-years of experience making and using hydrogen. That was THEN, this is NOW. Solar PV is being deployed at rates of 40% compound growth annually, doubling every two years. At that rate PV will provide 100% of the electricity presently consumed in 28 years from now, and two years later there will be double the world's capacity of PV than all the electricity made in the world in 2007, and in two more years after that the number would quadruple. Solar and wind requires storage means, and the vehicle fleet of 200 million cars will hold four to ten times the daily national consumption of electric energy. Vehicles will store surpluses and release it (sell it) on-demand, with enough on-board energy reserved for necessary anticipated commutes. Hydrogen fuel cell power plants are projected to be at least 60 kilowatts, which is only 80 horsepower. That is enough electric power to operate 60 average houses as long as the battery charge or fuel cell can function. There are 105 million households and 200 million light vehicles in the fleet. Most of those cars are parked long hours each night to recharge off non-peak baseload power from the grid, or parked at work or school all day while the PV is capable of charging them. A Hydrogen Economy infrastructure just adds more freedom of choice as to how you want to store your surplus energy. A fully-charged battery-electric car (with range-extension fuel cell or fuel engine) would typically hold one week's travel energy supply for normal commutes, and two or three car families would not have to fight over who gets use of the charger tonight. |
|
|
August 8, 2007
<quote> 5. Then we burn the hydrogen in a vehicle's fuel cell at an efficiency of about 50% (for a proton membrane fuel cell stack).
6. And finally, we lose another 10% of the energy that makes it to the electric motors driving the wheels, because they are only about 90% efficient. 7. In the end, about 80% of the original energy generated in order to produce the hydrogen is lost, for an EROI of 0.25. Since it doesn't pay to have an energy regime with an EROI of less than one, hydrogen cars seems a permanent improbability. <end quote>
The Carnot efficiency of gasoline internal combustion engines is 35% tops, only achieved a fraction of the time in actual operation. 6% net efficiency at turning the wheels is the common result. A net efficiency of 20% is more than three times as efficient as 6% and electric-drive vehicles regularly achieve three times the distance on the same energy value consumed.
It's a DIRTY SECRET they don't like to talk about in themselves but point out in others. |
|
|
August 8, 2007
<quote> 3. Now we have hydrogen gas, but it takes up a lot of space. We could compress it to around 10,000 psi to make it fit in a reasonably sized tank, which costs another 15%. But even then, it would only have about one-fifth of the energy density of gasoline, and the pressurized tank needed to store it is very heavy, large and expensive. So if we wanted to use it in a vehicle, we would have to liquefy the hydrogen by cooling it down to about -253°C and keep it in a pressurized, insulated container instead. This process would cost another 30% to 40% of the energy in the hydrogen. <end quote> Numerous inaccuracies, and a pattern of willful deception is emerging -- even by ACCIDENT one should get the occasion fact correct if one is honestly trying. The compression loss of 15% is not justified or credible source cited. Hydrogen is self-pressurizing if the design is incorporated in the electrolysis unit. One mole of water is 1.2 tablespoons of volume, which expands to 22.42 liters for one mole of hydrogen gas and 11.21 liters of oxygen gas, by the known Ideal Gas Laws. An electrolyser may contain the gases until they reach an ideal pressure before releasing them to the next process step. Patents using metal hydrid multi-stage pressurization using totally solid state materials and no pumps are commercialized. Conformable hydrogen storage tanks may be viewed by googling search terms Conformable hydrogen storage tank. These are not your father's hydrogen tanks any more. Wouldn't an "expert" check google to fact check their statements? LH2 is an option, not mandatory, and is only intended to be used on long distance trips. Gas H2 is for local travel where 1,000 mile range between fill-up is not required. The price difference is basically like choising "premium" for long trips and "regular" around home. The same tanks can hold both fuels. It's no big deal.
|
|
|
August 8, 2007
<quote> 2. Now we can electrolyze the water, but that process is only about 70% efficient, so we lose another 30% there. <end quote> Industrial electroysers achieve better than 90% efficiency. Oil refiners operate at 66% efficiency, consuming one barrel of crude for every two barrels of products, and gasoline is less than 100% of the products total, so gasoline is at best 50% energy efficient in the comparable process step. |
|
|
August 8, 2007
<quote> 1. Suppose we generate the hydrogen by the electrolysis of water. First we must "rectify" the grid's AC electricity into DC, at a cost of about 2% to 3% of the energy contained in the hydrogen. <end quote> Solar is DC electricity already. No "rectification" is required for electrolysis. That also applies for battery charging: DC input to DC stoirage units without useless trips through AC conversion. ANYBODY who does disclose this truth is unequipped to pontificate on the subject and is tossed out as ignorant or fraudulently inflating their credentials as "expert". |
|
|
August 8, 2007
<quote> The hydrogen fuel cycle goes like this: hydrogen is liberated from some source, compressed or liquefied for storage and transport, then "burned" in a device called a fuel cell, in which energy is captured from the hydrogen as it combines with oxygen from the air to form water. The captured energy can be used to power electric motors and generators, and the only emissions are pure water. <end quote>
No. Actually, the Hydrogen Fuel Cycle goes like this: Renewable fuels like solar or wind convert power to hydrogen through electrolysis. 2.4 gallons of water are converted to one kilogram of hydrogen and eight kilograms of oxygen. The power input is approximately 54 kilowatts of power and costs $5.40 at dime-a-kilowatt retail prices. The Hydrogen has a retail market value of $3 per kilogram vehicle fuel equivalent to gasoline energy content. The Oxygen has a wholesale industrial bulk market value of $12 for 8 kilograms processed to H2O2. That's $15 value on $5.40 electrolysis costs. The 34 kilowatts in a gallon gasoline @ $3 will take you 25 miles on average, while the 34 kilowatts in Hydrogen will take you 75 miles in an electric powered car. The $3/kg Hydrogen has the transportation energy of $9 of gasoline. If there was no oxygen capture, the whole $5.40 electrolsis cost for hydrogen carries you the same distance that $9 of gasoline takes you. The GM EV1 achieved up to 90 miles on 18.7 kilowatts of stored electricity nearly ten years ago. 118 mpg is achieved by plug-in hybrid Toyota Prius conversions today, or 84 mpg(e) when the plug-in kilowatts and gasoline are both accounted. For folks making many short commutes, they may may not burn a whole gallon of gasoline in a month. The superiority of electric drive vehicles is demonstrated absolutely, irrefutably. With fuel cell range-extension one can drive 500 miles or more with total confidence on a fuel-electric combo vehicle which averages 100 mpg(e). |
|
|
August 8, 2007
<quote> It's important to realize that hydrogen is not a fuel source; it's an energy carrier. Hydrogen does not exist freely in the universe; it's always bound to something else. So it takes an investment of energy to free hydrogen from its existing arrangement and make it available as a stored fuel. <end quote> Any time you see this statement you know you are being conned, directly by malice of the speaker, or indirectly by pervasive frauds sponsored by OILY INC who has inserted it into the culture in thousands of places to be carried by mules who haven't done the math or reasoned it out for themselves. It takes three barrels of crude oil to make two barrels of products. Crude oil needs to be processed in refineries costing $100,000,000 before the first gallon of gasoline is produced. There are no GASOLINE MINES in nature: gasoline is an energy carrier after a dangerous and difficult and polluting conversion process of crude oil. Besides the lose of one barrel in three in the refining process, you are tied to perpetual subservience to the Sheiks of Arabique. In 1991 American blood was spilled in Kuwait to advance democracy -- there will be a Hydrogen Economy long before there will be democracy in Kuwait, and we are still waiting since 1991 for women in Kuwait to get a voting franchise.
If you want the HYDROGEN TRUTH INFO, they you have to go to http://HydrogenTRUTH.info to get it. |
|
|
August 8, 2007
I love it when these guys, like Chris Nelder, try to influence policy with trash science. It shows them for who they really are. If you have an opinion, fine. But don't try to wrap it in a red ribbon and call it science. Hydrogen is a viable energy carrier and our future depends on it.
|
|
|
August 8, 2007
Sorry to ruffle the feathers of all you hydrogen car boosters out there, but I gotta call 'em like I see 'em. I have done plenty of reading on the subject and I am not as ignorant as you seem to think. Your objections would carry more weight if you provided some actual data along with your bile and wild projections. The infrastructure for a hydrogen economy IS NOT in place. It's hardly even beginning. Very low-cost H2 is NOT available now in about 99.9999% of the country. It will be DECADES "before H2 replaces gasoline at the pump." If somebody thinks that's not true, then show us the plans to build the pumps, tanks, pipelines, reformers, and everything else. Show us who's putting up the hundreds of billions to do that. Show us who's got actual plans to build millions of H powered vehicles today, and where the manufacturing plants are. Let's get real: all that stuff simply doesn't exist! Again, I do think there are valuable applications of hydrogen, but cars simply aren't one of them. As other commentors have pointed out, going to an all-electric regime is far more practical, inexpensive, and easily done. I'm interested in solutions that are real today, not possibilities that might materialize in several decades after enormous research expenses. Thanks to peak oil, I just don't believe we have that kind of time. We can "think positive" all we like, but that won't change the fundamental technical issues of hydrogen cars. I agree that I should have stuck with "efficiency" rather than EROI, because that only confused the issue. But it doesn't change the fact that the energy efficiency of a hydrogen fuel cycle, when used to power cars, is so low that it simply doesn't make sense. Nor does it change the fact that we'd have to build an entire new infrastructure to support it. I just can't see that happening, not for something so inefficient, when the are better and more readily available alternatives. Here's hoping for sensible investment in sensible alternatives that can provide practical alternatives to fossil fuels, asap. --Chris Nelder |
|
|
August 8, 2007
Great responses. My simple request is to let the FC industry find the appropriate markets in which to launch new technologies. I am pleased to see that the FC industry is making good progress in smaller, niche markets, and not getting so tied up in the hype from the car industry (politics, CAFE, infrastructure, car companies not wanting to disrupt the status quo, etc.). Appropriate markets today are generally ones where the equipment is constrained to a certain operating range (e.g. inside a warehouse where the refueling station is on-site and where the suppliers can monitor first installations) and where the benefits to the customer are quantifiable (e.g. extended operating hours, less noisy, reduced emissions, reduced capital investments, and more). The best example I know of today, above the micro-FC markets (i.e. ~>1kW), for a launch market is forklifts, where the FC have good chance of replacing batteries and maybe NG powered forklift trucks. I understand several FC integrators are shipping what I call Low-Rate-Initial-Production quantities into this forklift market in support of encouraging field trials. To anyone interested, I recommend reading The Innovators Dilemma, by Christensen. A great read for those who want to understand how new technologies emerge and sometimes change our lives. So, bottomline, I ask that we let customers make the daily decisions while continuing to encourage engineers and investors. One day customers might just say, "Hey, this works." When they do, they'll shift their buying behavior overnight. Cars are still a ways out there, but there's lots going on where it counts: in small, controlled, niche markets. Eben Johnson, Longmont, CO |
|
|
August 8, 2007
At a much higher level on the topic of future power sources, we fail to see the trees for the forest. The US has a large, complex, and aging electrical grid fed by many central station power plants, Nuclear and Wind Power being the cleanest of the group.
I make the argument that repair, upgrade, and adding to our existing nuclear fleet (which is going to happen) offer the most bang for the buck. Next, continue to improve battery technology to support plug in cars (at prices that we can all afford), and, systematically reduce our need for imported oil or home grown oil. Having said all of this, most likely this is the way it will be, the sooner we all accept and buy into this 1st line of action, the more time we will have to pursue all of the "alternative" energy sources; lets face, I read about hydrogen fuel cell powering satelites 50 yeara ago; it still is today, but is it financially feesible? Not yet, may not ever, because, all other alternative and renewable energy sources are getting CHEAPER; Wind Power being the real opportunity for the next several years, a high level, "best in class" approach to Energy Sources has to be made, and a decision made based on economics, reliability, and availability for implementation NOW; then, we can continue the development of other renewable energy sources. In the early 70's, I recall seeing Electric Power Development research papers from the US Govenment that so much as said, current thinking is to burn up the world source of cheap energy (oil for the most part) while we discover the next best source of large scale, electrical energy........I believed that then, and I still believe it today; but, today, 37 year later, we still have the same agenda; I'm an open minded guy, but lets face reality here, we know oil is a limited comodity, we better start finalizing the next best source of power before the lights go out.............
|
|
|
August 8, 2007
It is an intersting article by Chris Nelder, to know there are smart people who think and live in the past. We know how the computer era has revolutionized the world from tubes to microchips. The amount of wind energy that I realize in my town, in two months in a year, can produce the H2, which I need for the whole year. So, Chris I don't use utility power to produce Hydrogen that I need to drive my car. Smart people use smart approaches. In my opinion, Hydrogen Economy, by means of renewable sources, is bound to happen. That is the only way the world can survive. Be positive and Think positive.
|
|
|
August 8, 2007
Regarding, the efficiency of fuel cell stacks and extracting hydrogen from fossil or other fuels to run them. I was under the impression that fuel cell stacks are considerably more efficient than internal combustion engines, so there is some margin to play with when considering conversion losses, before it becomes a net loss. Also, in addition to the factors already raised in the article and by other posters (net efficiency, storage, etc.), I would think that whether it may make sense to generate hydrogen from other fuels in future will depend on whether we can find reliable ways to sequester or use CO2, which is only likely to make sense when captured at central locations such as "refineries" and whether we have enough environmentally benign battery capacity to run vehicles directly off the grid. We also need to understand whether there are any important potential consequences of leaking large volumes of hydrogen into the atmosphere. I was under the impression that there are some concerns (but am not sure whether they are real or oil / coal industry hype). |
|
|
August 8, 2007
Jim's premise seems to rely on the assumption that today's renewable energy technology will never become more effiecient, or that the technologies for storing, transporting, and converting hydrogen will never evolve. I agree, that right now, today, the technologies are not there to make it worth while, but how about in 5 years, a lot of money, and some bright minds to tackle the issue. Had he addressed these points, I might be more ready to head his warning.
|
|
|
August 8, 2007
I found this article and the response very thought provoking. What surprised me about the article is that it ignored solid state storage options. My impression is that they are where most of the "buzz" is these days. Is that incorrect? I also agree that the concepts like EROI are only usefull, if they are used to compared among all of the alternatives for meeting marginal demand. Comparing hydrogen to Saudi oil makes no sense, because marginal demand is already being served by much less efficient sources, like oil from oil sands and bio-fuels. Then there is the need to factor in the environmental and other costs that don't appear to in the EROI approach. A lower EROI might be acceptable, if all of the other choices have far higher carbon (etc.) footprints. For example, can we develop effective ways to capture and recycle / dispose of "dead" batteries? And, what are the limits to the growth of biofuel production (at least from terrestrial crops), given the competition between food and biofuels that is certain to drive up their price in future. Until we do a complete analysis, the answers won't be clear. Moreover, they are bound to vary from place to place, based on local conditions. |
|
|
August 8, 2007
An excellent article and thank you for having the courage to state the obvious. Who is to say that future developements may not change the equation but the distribution and storage issues are daunting. Your suggestions for the use of hydrogen as "stationary" power as opposed to "mobile" power is "right on" and akin to the European stratedgy of alternate and renewables for stationary while conserving petroleum or alternate equivalents such as liquified coal, tar sands, etc.. for mobile. Thank you again for a great article.
|
|
|
August 8, 2007
It is a shame that there is mostly only hype and anti-hype. The world needs balanced and thorough technical studies that rate the alternatives by state of the art, research and development alternatives and potential. Then, energy policy could be set by technicians instead of politicians! (P.S. all the rest of policy should be similarly determined including infrastructure like bridges.) |
|
|
August 8, 2007
The major danger we have to watch out for is that Congress will step in and make a law telling us what we must use. When that happens, we may be locked into a suboptimal "solution", viz low flow toilets, the rise in price of corn because of ethanol production while Brazil's sugar is tariffed high to protect our subsidized farm corporations, and so on. Misappropriation of technical terms (e.g., EROI sounds like ROI without defining either one in mathematical terms) to make your argument sound good obfuscates the whole situation. Beware Government money - it's distributed by legislators who want to collect money for their reelection! |
|
|
August 8, 2007
Chris Nelder is simply ignorant of developments in the hydrogen arena. Large scale H2 plants, powered by wind farms and using waste water, can produce H2 at costs far below the cost of gasoline. H2 refueling stations are in use in several state projects. With the infrastructure in place, and very low-cost H2 available now, with zero pollution, it is only a matter of a few years before H2 replaces gasoline at the pump. Joe Spease, President, Pristine Power |
|
|
August 8, 2007
The answers are simple and already there. We don't need some huge distant plant (whether it be a wind farm, nuclear or coal plant) running our homes and powering our cars. Those industries should be solely used to power industry itself. The remainder of the energy use is for homes and cars - that energy should be produced at the home - i.e. - panels on roofs, heat pumps in the ground, plug in hybrids with 10+ year battery life, energy efficiency etc. The answer is a mixture of all the solutions - if we rely on one technology (as we have with fossil fuels) - we will get burned (no pun intended)....we are getting burned people - wake up and make your own power! |
|
|
August 8, 2007
Thank you for having the courage and wisdom to say what needs to be said. The point isn't that hydrogen can't be done, or even that it shouldn't be done in some fashion, but rather that it is not the best answer to our energy problems. |
|
|
August 8, 2007
This is turning out just as I thought it would, when Bush first promoted hydrogen as the "answer". It was all just a red herring to distract us from finding a real alternative to Big Oil. Shame on you for believing him. Of course it won't work, for those reasons mentioned, but primarily the distribution and storage network. I don't know if anyone has noticed, but the electrical distribution infrastructure already exists, and is fuel agnostic. Conservation (smaller cars), Hybrid, Plug-In Hybrid, then pure BEV in that order is the real path to our future transportation system. As more people notice that it is already cheaper to build a Concentrating Solar Plant at 1GW than a 1GW nuclear plant, the price of electricity will rise more slowly than liquid fuel prices, and BEVs will rise to the top without anyone noticing. |
|
|
August 8, 2007
Excellent Article! It was interesting to read the comments. Let me explain the concept of EROEI in simple terms. EROEI of 1 in a nutshell mean that you generate 1 unit of energy, however in doing so you used up exactly 1 unit of fossil fuel/crude oil energy. Hence no energy gain, yet no energy loss! So lets take an example of crude oil. It has an EROEI of 8+. Which means in simple terms that it takes the saudis about 1 barrel of oil to pump out 8 barrels of oil from the ground. Assuming if fossil fuel was EROEI<1, then for every one barrel of oil pumped out it might take 2 or 3 barrels of oil. In which case you wonder, is it really smart to pump out that barrel of oi, considering I have used up 3 barrels in doing so!
Lets now put things in perspective. Crude oil from Saudi Arabia has an EROEI of 8+. Biofuels (brazil based ethanol) has an EROEI of 6. Crude oil and Biofuels are sources of energy. For every 1 unit of energy put in, you get 6 or 8 units back. So for the Green Lobby - Use Biofuels! The alternative available is now, it can use the existing infrastructure (pipelines, gas stations) and can even be mixed directly with gas and diesel.
Of course, Electricity distribution system has EROEI < 1. It is just a carrier of energy. It gets energy from point A to point B and in doing so there is a loss of energy. You dont generate electricity while transmitting it, do you? So it is not fair to compare Hydrogen with Electricity distrubution system. But Hydrogen is being touted as an alternative to crude oil. In order to do that, Hydrogen should be a net generator of energy. If Hydrogen is to replace crude oil, then new energy needs to be generated somewhere(as Hydrogen is not generating energy - EROEI of 0.25* vs 8 for crude oil). If hydrogen is not generating that energy then something else should - if that something else is wind/solar power then Hydrogen is green, if it is coal-powered then it is not! PS: By the way in 20 years Brazil became a net exporter of energy from being just a net importer of petroleum products. It gave USD 20 billion subsidies over 20 years, now its annual saving from being energy independent is in billions of dollars every year! |
|
|
August 8, 2007
I was expecting new, but no, it's just the same old dribble... Everyone who is saying the EROI methodology is silly to look at are correct, as you will always get less than parity (1) due to the second law of thermodynamics as referred to in the article. The seond law of thermodynamics applies to ANY energy conversion! The only thing that I would say is that Rob above have given the grid too much credit, the losses are far worse, and as for an EROI or even better, a 'well to wheels' analysis of oil - it's a nightmare! For some technologies like tar sands it requires more energy to produce the oil than is contained within it, but it can be done because there is a cheap source of energy present. So really: -Do your homework before writing articles to diseminated in public; there are a vast quantity of academic papers out there that might be worth a read... -Think about the economics, not just the efficiency, the EROI can even be negative provided that what you end up with at the end is worth more than what you started with (wind, sunshine, tides, waves....?) -Get with the times; your argument is as old as the hills and contributes nothing useful to the debate. Come back when you have developed a thorough understanding of the subject. In the meantime please refrain from 'enlightening' people with your limited knowledge of the subject. |
|
|
August 8, 2007
The word is BAL'DERDASH not BOLD Mike H. founder HYDROGENHEADS |
|
|
August 8, 2007
Well the big issue with hydrogen is that 1. If it's produced from natural gas, it's virtually no different than burning natural gas. 2. If it's produced from electricity, it has to be almost exclusively made from squeeky clean renewables, or else it's going to be worse than gasoline. 3. If you drive Electric, and it comes from the dirtiest coal power in the nations, it'd still be like driving a hybrid in emmisions. 4. We already have enough electric generating capacity to power 84% of the US car fleet if it were electric. 5. Using the batteries from the electric cars would be a big win for grid electricity storage. ________ Obviously plugin hybrids can over come the refueling speed dilemma of electric cars right now. However in the long term where oil isn't an option we would need to charge an electric car quickly. This can already be done with a 250KW Aerovironment charger, and AltairNano batteries. Can charge it to full in 6 minutes, or 80% in 1 minute. With this advancement, there really is no relative benefit to using hydrogen anymore. Overall, hydrogen is just a waste of time and energy. It will never be able to compete with electric on thermodynamic efficiency. |
|
|
August 9, 2007
The claim that it takes more energy to create hydrogen than the hydrogen fuel actually contains is false. Extracting any fuel requires energy – even getting gasoline from well to pump costs the equivalent of 20% of the energy of the gasoline. It does takes more energy to generate hydrogen than gasoline, but since a fuel cell is more efficient than conventional energy devices, fuel cell vehicles – even today’s prototypes – offer attractive overall efficiencies, more than making up the energy used in hydrogen production. Looking at the whole picture is important. Well-to-Wheel analyses compare the entire pathway of producing, storing, distributing and utilizing fuel. They can compare efficiencies and energy needs for the many different hydrogen production methods as compared to different fuels and vehicle technologies. Well-to-Wheel studies have found that most, but not all, of the fuel cell vehicle/fuel combinations being considered achieve significant energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission benefits over existing and other advanced technologies. The best performing fuel cell vehicles and fuel combinations do far better than the alternatives. Fuel Choices for Fuel-Cell Vehicles: Well-to-Wheels Energy and Emission Impacts by Michael Wang combines and analyzes all of the Well-to-Wheels studies. http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/260.pdf - abstract, http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/review05/anp_7_wang.pdf - power point presentation.
|
|
|
August 9, 2007
YADA YADA YADA, They said the same thing about GASOLINE 100 YEARS AGO. Using our natural resources, SOLAR ,WIND, AND BIOMASS FOR PRODUCING |
|
|
August 9, 2007
Converting to a hydrogen energy system world wide will save earth's resources and reduce heat trapping gases. The wind energy will be available for harvesting as long as the sun shines on our beautiful rotating earth. Visit http://www.windhunter.org/ and see how large quantities of hydrogen can be produced without ecological damage and human opposition. These large WINDHUNTER vessels or floating platforms use modified wind turbines, electrolysers and tube tank trailers and can be built quickly. Based on the assumptions in the economical analysis spread sheet the hydrogen is competitive to current costs of $192/thousand cubic feet without governmental subsidies. Windhunter vessels can start to replace our use of fossil fuels and reduce global warming. "You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model which makes the existing model obsolete."--Buckminster Fuller
|
|
|
August 9, 2007
I work with hydrogen production and compression every day. It is a very hazardous gas with a wide explicivity range and burns with a near invisible flame. I can see its use in industrial and commercial settings and in a public setting by those educated in the hazards. Garaging an H2 car would be extremely dangerous. Besides infrastructure, tremendous education is also required. Therefore I don't see H2 cars in the near future. I place my bet on BEV's. No education is required. After all, there are kiddie toy BEV's. |
|
|
August 9, 2007
Chris got the conclusion right but not the arguments. The EV factor more than make up for the long chain of hydrogen losses. Further hydrogen cars will be hybrids that also run on batteries because fuel cells are slow starters and does not readily accelerate a car => the batteries can be powered by the grid. Hydrogen production will most likely be a decentralized process and will occur when the grid experience peak power production without matching power consumption. As a consequence of the decentralized roll out the infrastructure argument does not apply and the hen and egg is also nonsense – all that is needed is a grid connection and a home hydrogen production plant including storage. The real reason why hydrogen cars are probably not going to be a widespread phenomenon is the fast progress in alternatives. In stead of producing power to the grid windmills can power plants that produce DME. DME is more costly to produce than hydrogen but far cheaper to store, transport and use in standard car engines using more or less the existing infrastructure. The best wind resources are at sea where it is prohibitively expensive to bring power to shore whereas a DME plant can be floated offshore and the DME can be transported in any way also used for oil. DME is super pure and relieves a lot of problems in combustion engines resulting in a clean combustion. Any existing diesel engine can with very small changes run better on DME.
An even simpler alternative is battery cars that are coming of age fast. Again all you need is the grid and battery cars are inherently simple and can achieve much better performance than combustion engine cars. Le Mans has been won by battery cars.
|
|
|
August 9, 2007
According to the article, one of the large energy losses is in the cooling,compression and subsequent boiling off of hydrogen. I remember as a boy in Vancouver we had these enormous floating tanks. Actually an outer tank open to the top with a slightly smaller tank opening to the bottom inside it. It had water in it and the inner tank floated on the water. These tanks were used to store producer gas at slightly above atmospheric pressure for piping to the various industries and domestic premisis that used this gas. The same system could be used for Hydrogen storage, eliminating one of the main energy losses. A similar system with a volume of, say, 5 cubic metres could be used in a private home. Of course this is of no use for transportation but could be ideal for static uses as mentioned in the article.
|
|
|
August 10, 2007
<quote> Jay MacDonald: Just out of curiosity how much water is required to create enough hydrogen to run a FCV 100 miles using today's technology? Is there an impact on this equation for salt water versus fresh? I lived in Nevada for a long time and am acutely aware that there is already a water crisis looming. <end quote> Water is one-ninth Hydrogen, and eight-ninth's Oxygen, by weight. One kilogram of Hydrogen is roughly equal to one gallon of gasoline per kilowatt-hours of potential energy, therefore one kilo of H2 comes from 9 kilos of H2O and that can be easily calculated to be 2.4 gallons of water required for each GGE (Gallon of Gasoline Equivalent). The water could easily be captured in a condensor bottle at the tailpipe and you would obtain 2.4 gallons of pure distilled-quality water suitable for drinking or cooking each time you used a GGE kilogram of H2. H2 in a fuel-cell vehincle propells the car using the electrochemical tranformation which is three times more efficient than gasoline burned in a Carnot heat engine.
That means you would get three times the "gas mileage" in an electrochemical-electric-powered car than you could in a similar gasoline vehicle.
Since "the fleet" gets 25 mpg today on average and burns 400 gallons per year, the H2 requirement is one third 400 kilos of H2, or 133 kilos of H2 per year on average. Sine 133 kilos of H2, each kilo making 2.4 gallons of water and coming from 2.4 gallons of water, the answer you requested is 320 gallons of water per year is required and then immediately returned Concerning the issue of "waste water" you mentioned, the electrolysis of 320 gallons of water generates 1067 kilograms of Oxygen, which can be added to 640 gallons of water to make H2O2 (Hydrogen-Peroxide) at 50% strength. This annual contribution of two tonnes of H2O2 can be used as an environmentally-safe bleach for treating waste-water. The commercial value in the bulk market for 50% dilution H2O2 in large lots puts the Oxygen "waste by-product" at a market value of 8 times the retail value of the Hydrogen used for driving. In short, you are shooting yourself in the foot listening to OILY INC propagandists, because you have less fresh water, less purity and safety to your fresh water, and chlorine-dioxin environmental pollutants mounting up downstream by delaying moving to a Hydrogen Economy. They get richer and you get poorer and your world gets more polluted, and that's what you buy at the gasoline pump: a dirty world and vampires teeth in your neck. Oh, and you get cheated out of two-thirds of the distance you could travel on 34 kilowatt-hours of fuel too.
|
|
|
August 10, 2007
Just out of curiosity how much water is required to create enough hydrogen to run a FCV 100 miles using today's technology? Is there an impact on this equation for salt water versus fresh? I lived in Nevada for a long time and am acutely aware that there is already a water crisis looming. I don't think the players in that debate are even considering the possibility of "burning it off as a fuel source". I've read the argument that we could just electrolize waste water, but that is already a valuable resource after processing in many environments (downstream requirements). Costal environs will not face this issue, especially assuming salt water can be used, but interior regions will definitely face this issue should we move toward a hydrogen economy.
|
|
|
August 10, 2007
Batteries large enough to make range of 200-300 km will come much sooner than a fuel cell car + large battery that make range of 200-300 km. Supplying a BEV with an efficient diesel electrical generator running on biodiesel is much more viable alternative to the fossil transportation than the fuel cell cars and all new hydrogen infrastructure. All you people that say we ignore the progress in the fuel sells ignore the progress that is being made in batteries. In my oppinion BEVs will come cheaper and faster than hydrogen economy. At the end the market decide - that is why Governments must equally subsidize BEVs and FC. |
|
|
August 12, 2007
The hydrgen fuels cell technologies shows the reams of the possiblities but when we can discuss the possiblities of hydrogen fuel cells technologies applications is a sign of porgess when in just the passed fifty years alone the thought of the ideas did not exist till now of its capiablities that are now just becoming a reality. Fossil fuel techonology and its concepts must be replaces with innovative thinkers that can see the visions for tomorrow future today! New advances are just around the corner that will be my predcitions that will over come all obstacles. An with the increase effects of climate change one can wonder do we have much time? |
|
|
August 13, 2007
|
|
|
August 13, 2007
I mostly agree with Chris Nelder, in my studies I have found the same figures and made the same arguments. I disagree on the use of H2 for stationary energy storage in buildings - H2 is less efficient, much more expensive, and takes up more space than standard storage batteries. That Jason Lerner chose to use the more expensive less efficient option is not a good argument for H2 storage. I was amused by all those accusing Mr. Nelder of "oily company propaganda". Folks, the "Oilies" are the main promoters of H2! The oil companies are the biggest producers of H2, from steam reformed natural gas, and they intend to be the main suppliers of this profitable new fuel when the oil runs low. Then the H2 propagandists pop up! LOL! Making H2 from renewable electricity makes little sense. Much better to use renewable electricity to displace coal power. Due to the poor efficiency of electrolysis and fuel cells, it will not be cost competitive to H2 from steam reformed gas or coal, and most people will choose the less expensive option. Running on electricity is much less expensive and more efficient than H2. The future is electric. |
|
|
August 14, 2007
Quote "Think about the economics, not just the efficiency, the EROI can even be negative provided that what you end up with at the end is worth more than what you started with (wind, sunshine, tides, waves....?)" Um, no. The only way we could have a "negative EROI" is if we expended energy and got no energy at all in return. As Shashank Verma pointed out, only an EROI of more than 1 can be considered an energy source. EROI from 1 to 0 would be an energy carrier, not a source (electricity and H2 are in that category). While there are activities with a "negative EROI", such would be neither energy source nor energy carrier. |
|
|
August 14, 2007
Quote: "So what if we went for an AMMONIA ECONOMY (NH3), using nitrogen as the binder instead of the greenhouse-causing carbon? How problematic would an ammonia economy be?" Ammonia has been used to fuel internal combustion engines, zero carbon emissions, but it has very high NOx emissions as well as traces of ammonia. NH3 has certain advantages over H2 - it liquifies under pressure at room temperature, has a higher volumetric energy density, larger molecules means less leakage, and it has a distinctive odor that is easily identified. Downside, it is toxic at high concentrations, flammable, may take more energy to make than H2 (depending on process), and it stinks. Those are serious drawbacks. AFAIK, no one has yet made an ammonia fuel cell. Makes a good refrigerant, but best used as a fertilizer - certain soil bacteria eat it up and convert it to soluble nitrates, which plants take up to make amino acids. |
|
|
August 15, 2007
Jennifer Gangi said "The claim that it takes more energy to create hydrogen than the hydrogen fuel actually contains is false. Extracting any fuel requires energy – even getting gasoline from well to pump costs the equivalent of 20% of the energy of the gasoline." Actually, it's true. Simply because it is also true for other fuels does not make it any less true for H2, as Gangi admitted: "It does takes more energy to generate hydrogen than gasoline, but since a fuel cell is more efficient than conventional energy devices, fuel cell vehicles – even today’s prototypes – offer attractive overall efficiencies, more than making up the energy used in hydrogen production."
Yes, H2 fuel cells are more efficient than IC engines, but as my previous posts have indicated, batteries are several times more efficient than H2 fuel cells, and batteries are cheaper as well, offering a much more attractive transportation alternative. |
|
|
August 15, 2007
william hughes said " I remember as a boy in Vancouver we had these enormous floating tanks. Actually an outer tank open to the top with a slightly smaller tank opening to the bottom inside it. It had water in it and the inner tank floated on the water. These tanks were used to store producer gas at slightly above atmospheric pressure for piping to the various industries and domestic premisis that used this gas. The same system could be used for Hydrogen storage, eliminating one of the main energy losses. " That was known as a "gasometer" and was used to both store and measure natural gas. It has been rendered mostly obsolete by newer gas technology. Unfortunately, it isn't very practical for H2, as H2 has a lower density than natural gas. A quick quiz: We have 2 tanks with the same volume and pressure inside, one filled with pure hydrogen, the other filled with methane. Which tank contains more hydrogen atoms? Answer: The methane tank (CH4) contains twice as many hydrogen atoms as the hydrogen tank (H2). So, with less than half the energy when burned (carbon contributes some energy) the gasometer tank would need to be more than twice the size to store the same amount of energy. Worse, the small H2 molecules would slowly leak out through the water seal - or a lot would if the water seal was lost for any reason. There are better ways of storing H2. Come to think of it, there are better ways of storing energy than with H2! |
|
|
August 15, 2007
Lion Kuntz said "The compression loss of 15% is not justified or credible source cited. Hydrogen is self-pressurizing if the design is incorporated in the electrolysis unit. One mole of water is 1.2 tablespoons of volume, which expands to 22.42 liters for one mole of hydrogen gas and 11.21 liters of oxygen gas, by the known Ideal Gas Laws. An electrolyser may contain the gases until they reach an ideal pressure before releasing them to the next process step." The problem there is that the solubility of H2 and O2 in the electrolyte increases with increased pressure. If the pressure gets too high, the H2 and O2 will migrate through the electrolyte, contaminating the H2 with O2 and vice versa - a very bad situation, particularly under high pressure. Can you say BOOM? A reasonable limit for electrolyzer pressure is abut 250 psi - far short of the 5,000 to 10,000 used for H2 prototype cars. Pumps still needed. "Patents using metal hydrid multi-stage pressurization using totally solid state materials and no pumps are commercialized." Yes, but that means cooling the hydride so it can absorb H2, then heating it to release the H2 at higher pressure, and repeat multiple times. That is far less energy efficient than just using a mechanical pump! Using metal hydrides does dramatically reduce storage pressure, but it also dramatically increases the weight and cost. Since metal hydrides heat up when absorbing H2, limiting H2 storage, they must be cooled during refill, which makes for very slooow refueling. When it takes longer to refuel with H2 than a battery car takes to recharge, the sole remaining advantage for H2 evaporates - and 10 minute charging has already been proved by Phoenix Motors and AeroVironment. Chris Nelder said "To build a 'hydrogen economy,' we would need to start over with everything. Hundreds of thousands of miles of pipeline, 90,000 new pumps at service stations, 210 million vehicles—everything. " Lion Kuntz replied "What a bunch of baloney. Houses in a hydrogen economy are likely to be powered by fuel cells fed by gas pipes. The fuel cell delivers light, and hot water AND HEAT (which is often the more valuable product), and can operate air-conditioning by thermal or electrical principles as "co-generation". They Hydrogen Economy homes are this near 100% efficient." Not only has Lion failed to disprove Nelders statement, he is proposing adding even more to the complex, elaborate and expensive conversion to H2! Sorry, Lion, but existing natural gas piping is unsuitable for H2. Not only will H2 leak out through pores too small for methane, but H2 will dissolve right into the steel pipes, making them brittle - not something we can tolerate even in low pressure lines, let alone 3000 psi high pressure pipes! There have been proposals to thread special H2 pipes through existing gas lines, that might be less expensive than laying new pipes, but it would also reduce the pipe diameter, thus reducing its capacity. |
|
|
August 15, 2007
Lion Kuntz said: "Renewable fuels like solar or wind convert power to hydrogen through electrolysis. 2.4 gallons of water are converted to one kilogram of hydrogen and eight kilograms of oxygen. The power input is approximately 54 kilowatts of power and costs $5.40 at dime-a-kilowatt retail prices." That's a bit optomistic for solar, but otherwise correct. But Lion plans to sell H2 at $3 per Kg to make it price competitive with gasoline, and more than make up the difference by converting the O2 and some H2O into hydrogen peroxide, H2O2, and sell that. Why? Because the market price of the O2 produced is not enough to subsidize the H2 price, but the market price of H2O2 is much higher. Unfortunately, you can't make hydrogen peroxide by mixing oxygen and water, it's not that simple. From Ah, but there is a way to make H2O2 using electrolysis: " Formerly inorganic processes were used, employing the electrolysis of an aqueous solution of sulfuric acid or acidic ammonium bisulfate (NH4HSO4), followed by hydrolysis of the peroxydisulfate ((SO4)2)2− which is formed." Not exactly what you had in mind, is it, Lion. Lions financial analysis is fatally flawed. Lion ignores the cost of equipment, ignores the costs of operation and maintenance, ignores the cost of energy required to make H2O2, and really has no idea how to turn O2 and water into H2O2. Lion Kuntz then indulges in some equivocation, trying to confuse the mileage of battery electric cars with the mileage of H2 fuel cell cars. Hey, they both have electric motors! However, the Honda FCX vehicles now on the road get about 45 miles per Kg of H2, the newer streamlined Honda FCX is supposed to get 55 miles. The other fuel cell prototypes now being tested get similar mileage, good, but not much better the best hybrids. On the other hand, for the 54 Kwh needed to make 1 Kg of H2, the Toyota Rav4EV can travel 180 miles, the Tesla Roadster almost 225 miles, and the GM EV1 could travel nearly 260 miles! Now we can see why even Ford and GM are now favoring batteries, and relegating H2 fuel cells, if used at all, to be a mere "range extender" for battery electric vehicles. Efficiency of electrolyzer 60%, PEM fuel cell 50%, overall 30% - less if you subtract energy for compression or liquifaction. Efficiency of charger and battery, 85%. Hmmm, I'd say 85% is better than "under 30%". |
|
|
August 15, 2007
Lion Kuntz said: "...convert power to hydrogen through electrolysis. 2.4 gallons of water are converted to one kilogram of hydrogen and eight kilograms of oxygen. The power input is approximately 54 kilowatts of powerr and costs $5.40 at dime-a-kilowatt retail prices." Minor corection - electricity is sold by the killowatt-hour (a unit of energy), rather than by killowatt (a unit of power). Using 54Kwh to electrolyze 1 Kg of H2 is 60% efficient - just what we said. However, in a later post Lion said " Industrial electroysers achieve better than 90% efficiency." So what happened? Can't get industrial electrolysers? Well, no. The key is that there are no industrial water electrolyzers - it is too expensive. Instead, the standard industrial source of H2 is from steam reformed natural gas, and that process is indeed 90% efficient. So, Lion Kuntz, you've confused kilowatts with kilowatthours, and confused the standard industrial H2 source with electrolysis! Lion needs to do a bit more studying before pontificating. BTW, the site www.siei.org details the building of a small solar and H2 fuel cell plant for a vacation home, and they reported their electrolysis efficiency at 18%. So it is possible to do far worse than 60%. |
|
|
August 15, 2007
Chris Nelder said: "Hydrogen does not exist freely in the universe; it's always bound to something else. So it takes an investment of energy to free hydrogen from its existing arrangement and make it available as a stored fuel." To which Lion Kuntz replied: "Any time you see this statement you know you are being conned, directly by malice of the speaker, or indirectly by pervasive frauds sponsored by OILY INC who has inserted it into the culture in thousands of places to be carried by mules who haven't done the math or reasoned it out for themselves." Lion then makes a non-sequitur argument that it takes energy to make gasoline, too. So? There is no refutation of Nelders statement, it's factual - there are no hydrogen wells, it takes energy to get H2 fuel. The main promoters of H2 fuel is "oily inc.", they are the biggest producers of H2, they have the cheapest source of H2, and they want to make money selling motorists expensive H2 fuel at their stations when the oil runs low. So, we have mules carrying the H2 hype for the Oil Companies, attempting to insert it into the culture by the thousands. Which oil company do you work for, Lion Kuntz? |
|
|
September 6, 2007
I am quite dismayed to see such an underwhelming amount of support for Mr. Nelder's argument. Essentially C.M. gets it. This quote sums it up. "I was amused by all those accusing Mr. Nelder of "oily company propaganda". Folks, the "Oilies" are the main promoters of H2! The oil companies are the biggest producers of H2, from steam reformed natural gas, and they intend to be the main suppliers of this profitable new fuel when the oil runs low.". All of you arguing so persuasively for hydrogen are somehow positioned to benefit financially if and when the technology goes online. A six year old explained the facts in an unbiased manner could see the inherent logic in making and using electricity directly! Making hydrogen (using electricity?) to then power fuel cells to make electricity to charge storage batteries to run electric vehicles... Its quite clear. The model of the petroleum industry with its refineries and pipelines and cartels and international politics etc. is and has been vastly profitable. The second, third, fourth and fifth most profitable companies on the planet at present are oil companies. Even in the twilight of oil's dominance as an energy source the oil companies continue to influence and direct the course of energy outlook and progress. Hydrogen would see that model continue. There will NOT be a mini-hydrogen refinery behind every home. Most Americans can barely cope with the complexity of an ATM. A Macintosh PC is taxing to many and a Windows PC is simply beyond reckoning. Americans want and need an energy system that they can utilize with the same lack of thought that gasoline provides. The taxes and markups at every stage of the delivery system would be completely absent with the 'roll your own' model. Weeks before I saw this discussion I told friends that the fuel cell model was the one that will dominate. I don't agree that it should. I do however think it will. This discussion has not disabused me of that opinion. Rock on Mr. Nelder and thank you C.M. for 'getting it'. Unfortunately I think the fuel cell lobby has persuasive geniuses in their employ. They will blind us with science and while we are dazed and confused will set up their hydrogen oligarchy and complete the destruction of the planet begun by the petroleum oligarchy in the last century. H
|
|
|
September 12, 2007
Wow over a month later and still ticking... You must have hit a nerve! There is another way to make on-demand hydrogen/oxygen that hasn't been mentioned. Using a mig welder feeder to feed aluminum welding rod discharging onto a carbon drum in water. An ordinary alternator was used to power the welder. The resultant gas mixture is both hydrogen and oxygen. This method was used successfully in the 1970's to run several automobiles in Israel. There is an SAE publication on this. The resultant aluminum oxide residue can be resmelted to make new aluminum rod using renewables to generate the electricity for the aluminum furnace. Of course there's always a fly in the ointment. A system for recycling the spent aluminum would have to be created. No reason you couldn't do this at home though. Otherwise, Mr. Nelder has stated the argument fairly well, even if it's not too flattering for fuel cell manufacturers. All-in-all, it might be cheaper to electrify the roads for battery powered or hybrid vehicles with local renewable electricity. |
|
|
September 12, 2007
zHydrogen has always been the long-shot favorite in the Alt. Energy olympics; and we've all marveled at the technological prowess of the hydrogen zealots. They pushed the envelop and developed technologies that not have made hydrogen superfluous, i.e. fuel cells that use CNG or scrubbed methane; but made us all conscious of the high cost of hydrogen handling, i.e. compression to 10,000 psi and how many tanks for a day's backup? Sure California has one or two hydrogen refueling stations but the costs are so large to subsidize them, the companies aren't releasing them. In practical terms; we may have reached 'PEAK HYDROGEN' and in the processs enabled much more efficient and cost effective technologies to emerge--ubiquious thin film solar, wind farms, and even my bio-gas, MANURE2ENERGYtm digesters.
|
|
|
November 21, 2007
Tens of millions of dollars are being spent by battery companies in order to discredit hydrogen because hydrogen works better than batteries. A large number of "pundits" who act as "writers", "bloggers", "authors" and "non-profit evangelist group founders" are actually supported by financial gain from battery companies who are terrified of hydrogen displacing their revenue streams. Hydrogen can be made at home. Anybody who says it can't is either a shill, an idiot or completely out of touch with reality and technology. You can make it for free, at home, all day long and all night long. Anybody who says it costs too much or that it has some evil chain reaction of "negative karma" or "sour grid source" or causes cancer because of something back in the energy chain is almost always a shill because the energy chain is constantly improving. Anybody who says the numbers say it is all wrong or bad or evil or inefficient are also usually a shill
|
|
|
April 13, 2008
as a newcomer to this site I find no reference to the amount of air (Oxygen) we are all destroying by the different means of energy we all use. From various sources it seems that for every gallon of fuel (petrol-diesel-even bio fuel) we burn, we destroy 14700 gallons of air(2940 gallons of Oxygen)? that is to say we cannot breath the exhaust emmitted. If that is fact, and if CO2 sequestration is the "in thing" surely we will also be taking out even more of our precious O2, our "lifebreath" and burying it somewhere deep underground. How will the Oxygen be replaced once it has been locked away, or burnt. The demand on our finite atmosphere is already exceeding its recovery potential by natural means. Whatever primary energy solution is being contemplated, great consideration should be given to the already massive demands on our lifebreath, we should all remember that everything that lives, breathes, burns, oxidises, and many chemical processes all need OXYGEN! we all need to look after it, and not "burn" it away like we've done with oil.
Our "biosphere" the layer of air in which we can live without difficulty is about 15000 feet high, a layer 3000 feet thick would be all the Oxygen to supply the planet with its needs, there is obviously Oxygen above that level, but in much thinner concentrations, and the airplanes are destroying that in massive quantities, all I can say is this " PLEASE DON'T BURN, LEARN" |
|
|
July 10, 2008
It occurs to me that local methanol production from clean coal/biomass gassification power plants could be a viable step toward energy self sufficiency as soon as our fleet of cars becomes more flex fuel acceptable. Methanol burned in a car produced from biomass has a low carbon cost, I think, and as economic recovery/delivery systems for biomass use come into place, fossil fuels could be phased out.
As soon as I see effecient solar panel/installation packages become financially available, I'll buy one, but I think we are kidding ourselves if any solution is viable only through a government subsidy. I hear there are some thin film solar panels getting down to that magic $1/watt retail figure. The next step is affordable, light, rechargeable batteries & I hear there is a lithium/silicon solution on the horizon, and when electric transportation total costs become competative, I'll be right there to buy them too. But in the meantime, I think we are blowing smoke if we don't use a staged approach to free ourselves from financing our Islamic/socialist enemies with $ trillions of oil money. Immediatly, we could start with some loan guarentees to those who replace oil furnaces with geothermal heat pumps. |
|
|
August 17, 2008
As soon as the name calling starts reason gets thrown out the window. I read the first third of the comments and find many don't back up their statements. I will follow up on those that give website references.
Forgive me if I repeat something said in the latter two thirds I did not read. My take is this. Right now using traditional electrolosis, my understanding is that, if I want to push my electric car 40 miles I will have to use between 3 and 4 Kwh. If I want to push my car with hydrogen I will have to use 3 time the Kwh to produce enough Hydrogen to do the same work. These are very rough numbers but the relative magnitude is there. So, we can generate hydrogen. The question is, does this make sense? Many or our electric generating power plants run on natural gas. Doing so results in an energy loss of over 50 percent. So, if you are charging your electric car off the natural gas generating grid, the energy source is not that efficient. Running our cars on compress natural gas makes more sense. There is an existing natural gas grid in many parts of the country. You can fuel up at home. Honda makes the only CNG vehicle on the market called the Civic GX. It is THE cleanest car on the market. No, I don't work for Honda. But I'm thinking of trading in my prius for a GX. I want to get off gasoline. Even a plug-in hybrid runs on gasoline. Recent Compressed natural gas discoveries can support the US needs without import for many years. And natural gas which is methane is renewable through anaerobic digestion of our organic waste. They are moving in this direction in Europe. Of course the ultimate answer for me is a plug-in hybrid running on natural gas. Any vehicle that runs on CNG could very likely be re-tuned to run on Hydrogen. Then the question is, Why bother with the fuel cell? I think the fuel cell will have it's place as a source of power for our buildings but is less practical for vehicles. |
Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions.
If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!
Previous Article
Best of luck to you.