Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

How Economical is the Energy of Hydrogen?

By Scott Sklar
February 13, 2007   |   40 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

I have heard that the economics of using hydrogen fuel cells in the automotive industry just isn't feasible as more energy is needed to isolate H2 from natural compounds than can be recovered from its use. Is this true? --Pete L., Wilmington, DE

While energy inputs and outputs are important, they are not the deciding factor. The energy costs of wars in the Middle East, protecting sea lanes, drilling for the oil resource in obscure areas is not small, but the political risks are enormous.
Additional Information

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.

40 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 40
February 13, 2007
You're full of methane Scotty!

http://www.econogics.com/TENHE/

http://www.recoverybydiscovery.com/hydrogen.htm

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/04-2NRSummer/14-17V58N2.pdf
Comment
2 of 40
February 13, 2007
Yes Scot;you have hit the nail on the head.

Now factor in the cost of exhaust pollution against zero pollution from F.C. vehicles and H. "tHe friendly element" starts to make a lot of economic sense.

Mike H.

Michael Halpin founder HYDROGENHEADS
Comment
3 of 40
February 14, 2007
Assuming that the power grid is massively expanded, from renewables, and..yes..from nuclear power, then hydrogen represents a possible transportation energy carrier that has a big environmental benefit that would justify it's use..it is pollution free in a vehicle. Before dreaming too much about such a future transportation system, the grid needs to be built up to the point that it is free of polution. That would be the proper place to focus..on building a clean energy grid.

Clean hydrogen could then be produced from electrolysis. In the meantime, biofuels, hybrids, and mileage efficiency are the only realistic areas to focus our attention.
Comment
4 of 40
February 14, 2007
It seems everyone wishes to imply that Renewable Energy can directly compete with the cost of energy that created its required infrastructure. The way I've seen most environmentalists do their equation is to throw out all capital cost of the new infrastructure & also subtract the cost of all the damage fossil fuels causes that will not be required to fix.

They also seem to forget that the main cost of the infrastructure is the cost of energy to create it. The 2nd biggest cost is the land it sits on. Since these cost have to be financed up front time value of money has to be added into the equation.

Those that can afford to purchase the energy 30 years in advance aren't looking for a return OF their investment, but a return ON their investment.

As long as one thinks small the economics never work. One never reaches the level where one is creating SELL-ABLE SPIN-OFF BENEFITS to subidize the cost of the infrastructure. Yes the key is sell-able.
Comment
5 of 40
February 14, 2007
The detractors don't get the point. Hydrogen is an energy carrier or " currency", not a fuel in the traditional sense. All renewable sources, solar thermal,PV, wind, hydro, geothermal, ocean tides and waves, produce electricity which is used as it is produced and make hydrogen and stored locally. The hydrogen is used to produce power via gas turbines or large fuel cells to meet peak loads. For use in vehicles, it is very flexible as it can be used to fuel the over 800 Million existing ICEs or fuel cell vehicles. New storage techniques such as carbon nano-fibre have demonstrated very high storage densities. The false idea that hydrogen "cannot be contained" is rubbish. It can be stored in steel or composite tanks. The distribution of H2 has been done for nearly 100 years. The old "town gas" made from coal was 40% H2. The American power industry has proposed producing H2 locally at "gas stations" via electricity from renewables, thus using the existing Grid to transport the energy.
Comment
6 of 40
February 14, 2007
Using solar and wind power to produce hydrogen from even dirty lake water via electrolysis may be a slow process but it can be done cheaply over time. Purifying the water extends the life of contact devices, yet dramatically increases the cost.
Recovery, concentration and storage add cost which can not be ignored.
For transportation fuel supply grids this process is totally un-acceptable, however for low demand stationary units the method can prove ideal in limited circumstances such as for rural area home/ag. useage.
Comment
7 of 40
February 14, 2007
For a practical application of hydrogen or synfuel generation, I recommend the March 2007 issue of Popular Science.

The reported plasma machine turns all landfill content into electircity, leaving only a brick of waste to be incorporated into building block material. Houston, we have an ecological solution. Let's not let this one get away.
Comment
8 of 40
February 14, 2007
Scott, I also suggest you check your efficiency figures for fuel cells as I believe you are using figures from a combined heat and power application and even today's recips can reach 85% in this kind of service.

As Mark Roeder states, the fuel cell is a means of converting energy to work. It does not create energy contrary to the comments by the mainstream media. It is an intriguing technolog that is not yet ready for commercial "prime time". Fuel cells are not a panacea for energy issues.
Comment
9 of 40
February 14, 2007
I believe that the most important factor is not being addressed. There is no distribution system for hydrogen.

The cost alone of a distribution system with storage capability is staggering to contemplane.

There is nothing wrong with H2 as a fuel but the infrastructure is another issue.
Comment
10 of 40
February 14, 2007
First off, let's get something straight. The Hydrogen economy is not based on using hydrogen as a fuel but as an energy carrier. Somewhat like a battery. The concept uses any renewable source ie. wind, solar, ect. to "charge" or seperate water into its component parts. The fuel cell then recombines the the hydrogen with the oxygen to produce electricity and water. Hydrogen is the medium not the fuel.
By using cracked methane to produce hydrogen you're not gaining anything. You still produce carbon and use up a non-renewable resource.
Comment
11 of 40
February 14, 2007
In order to compare economics of different fuels it is necessary to include all costs. When comparing hydrogen to electric, or gas as a transportation fuel, it is necessary to use the baseline of a zero pollution fuel..thus hydrogen as a fuel is superior to gas in emissions cleanup cost. Most of the comments in this posting ignore that benefit, and should include that as some sort of credit for hydrogen fuel, or the cost of other fuels should include air pollution cleanup as an extra cost.
Comment
12 of 40
February 14, 2007
As a realist, entrepreneur, and investor I invest in renewable energy projects. Some day large solar renewable electrical generation plants may be abundant enough to convert water into hydrogen. Unfortunately, today it takes 2 gallons of dirty fossil fuels to make one gallon (equal energy amount) of hydrogen fuel.

Hydrogen development, from the investor's point of view, must be profitable. Hydrogen fuel development is a pipe dream that all of us would love to see happen; unfortunately, consumers and investors are seeking cost savings and profits more so than philanthropic investments. All of us vote with our pocketbook and that is a vote against high fuel costs.

Bottom line: Hydrogen cost much more to produce than other comparable sources of energy; therefore, the fuel cannot compete and until it can compete it will not be developed for consumer uses.
Comment
13 of 40
February 14, 2007
I found it interesting that for an answer to this question that the only source considered was the industry association. Getting only one answer from the industtry boosters is like asking Archer-Daniels-Midland for an opinion on ethanol. For a different perspective go to:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/15/zubrin.htm

(As noted by Dursun,above.)
Comment
14 of 40
February 14, 2007
A car with a tank filled with hydrogen is safer than a car filled with gasoline. Hydrogen is lighter than air...it will burn completely, in a short period of time up into the air vs gasoline which burns at a slower rate and the gasoline liquid will spread igniting other flamable products.
They add scents to natural gas so that you can smell it. You could do they same for hydrogen.
Comment
15 of 40
February 14, 2007
How about methanol as a hydrogen carrier? As a plain liquid it is easy to transport and produce from natural or associated gas and can be convereted to hydrogen at the refueling site (service station) by reforming. This would reduce and even eliminate some of the expense of producing hydrogen and especially transporting it, which, as mentioned, is a serious bottleneck today. Methanol can be produced at a cost (not price) of around 33 cents per gallon.
Comment
16 of 40
February 14, 2007
The infrastruture is basically in place. Honda and GM are promoting individual on site production vs central distribution. The use of solar and wind for electrolysis instead of natural gas reformation of these systems will reduce CO2 even more. Hydrogen can be piped along with natural gas in existing pipe lines. Electrical cars are a good answer too, except how are you making the electricity to charge the batteries....., coal, nuclear, fossil fuels? Hydrogen from methane from landfills kills to birds with one stone. The carbon can be sequester to make carbon composites.

With Global warming we need many solutions. Let the free market work..... even the playing fields with government energy subsidies.
Comment
17 of 40
February 14, 2007
I also learned that hydrogen fanatics don't want any criticism...and they were a strong presence. The training session was packed with engineers and 3 'wacky inventors' inventing a hydrogen car.

It was fun; but I came away with a strong sense that this was not going to be a product for mass consumption; it's doable at enormous expense and there are potential catastrophic risks entailed...vandalizing a hydro installation is a horrific thought; securing it a major liability.

Was I intrigued?

You bet...engineers love a genuine challenge and there were a lot of 'I can tackle the problems and make it work, engineers there.
Comment
18 of 40
February 14, 2007
Last month, I took the world's first The Design for Hydrogen workshop sponsored by the Hydrogen Energy Center of Maine.

1. hydrogen handling is 'tricky' and expensive...The CHEWONKI installation cost over $250k and produces enough backup power---water to hydrogen to 10,000 psi tanks to fuel cells for slightly over one day.


2. hydrogen binds with many other materials---great for long term storage but a PIA for short term use.

3. Fuel cells use expensive catalysts that are in short supply.

4. Shelf life of components is relatively short.

5. If you're going to sep. out hydrogen from Water it must be absolutely pure.

6. Hydrogen is odorless and colorless and very explosive! Think insurance costs as a component..

7.the bottom line is how much will it cost, how much power is produced, and 'how dangerous is it' ...if you hit a hydro. car in a parking lot will it blow up...dare you drive it again...etc.
Comment
19 of 40
February 14, 2007
I believe that the most important factor is not being addressed. There is no distribution system for hydrogen.

The cost alone of a distribution system with storage capability is staggering to contemplane.

There is nothing wrong with H2 as a fuel but the infrastructure is another issue.
Comment
20 of 40
February 14, 2007
I am not surprised to see those with great investments in this science getting upset with others who question its authenticity.

I am about 1/2 way through, (still shoveling snow in Buffalo) 'The Hype About Hydrogen' by Joseph Romm. Unfortunately, for an energy source, it is not that common here on Earth. The drift so far is that it is an energy hog to separate from the oxygen, difficult to contain, and even tightly woven materials like stainless steel cannot hold the small hydrogen molecules. The metal deteriorates becoming brittle in time. Changing over an infrastructure that will only bleed off limited natural gas is not a real bright idea. I don't have any investments in hydrogen, but with the weak science, I probably won't be in the future. Unless, of course they can find enough hydro electricity to split the stuff, Then maybe. Batteries would operate in cars much easier, safer, so hydro electricity would better be spent recharging batteries.

Tim Gard
Comment
21 of 40
February 14, 2007
Let's not forget that in addition to being a net energy loser, it also is a gross polluter. the conversion process makes 4 pounds of carbon dioxide for every pound of hydrogen. And that doesn't count the platinum required for the fuel cells. I have heard that the need for platinum will double if hydrogen becomes a common fuel, which will also produce a lot of pollution. As for efficiency, I have also heard that just using the natural gas used to produce hydrogen as the energy source would produce 14 times the energy that the hydrogen will produce.
Comment
22 of 40
February 14, 2007
The opinion of Scott Sklar is an eye opener. Now we have to start the discussion about how to handle. Or we start the discussion "first the chicken or first the egg". I am interested in the new Honda(fuelcell)car wich will be launches in 2008.

Kindly regards from the Netherlands, Martin Kleintunte
Comment
23 of 40
February 14, 2007
Let's get a few facts straight:

(1) Hydrogen fuel works in cars on the road today with a tank and some plumbing conversions. The Hydrogen Economy is NOT necessarily a Motorized Fuel Cell Economy. Stationary Home Fuel Cells, such as SOFCs which use no precious metal catalysts, will be the public's first contact with either fuel cells or hydrogen.

(2) dursun sakarya is blowing swamp gas.
http://hydrogentruth.info/Villains/Debunking_Robert_Zubrin_H2Hoax.html
http://hydrogentruth.info/page_02.html

(3) Ron Gremban got it all wrong. Industrial Electrolysis units are 92% efficient, self-pressurizing electrolysis is well under development, pipelines will deliver in a mature infrastructure, but interim drop-off trailers with attached pumps makes instant infrastructure possible anywhere there is legal parking space and meet local permit approvals.

Get the Hydrogen TRUTH Info:
Http://HydrogenTRUTH.Info
Comment
24 of 40
February 14, 2007
Making H2 from renewable electricity via electrolysis is at best around 60% efficient. Real fuel cells are less than 50% efficient. The H2 must also be compressed or liquified and transported at let's say optimistically 85% efficiency. Best case cycle efficiency is then 25.5%. In comparison, electric propulsion can have 93% transmission * 90% charger * 90% battery = 75% cycle efficiency. This means that a battery electric vehicle can go three times the distance on the same amount of renewable electricity as an H2 vehicle!!
Comment
25 of 40
February 15, 2007
Comment # 2: If we could derive engines that could operate on a half dozen different types of fuels interchangeably, we'd avoid 'restrictive' venues that continually narrow our options and choices in fuels. The whole arena of external combustion engines running on simple fuels needs to be re-examined; that R&D should be supported by DOE tax incentives or grant funding. Detroit also needs to consider dramatically simplifying their vehicles to stay competitive and reduce petroleum consumption. We're all in this together, and after awhile 'making a buck' loses all relevance when compared to 'surviving.'
Comment
26 of 40
February 15, 2007
Comment # 1: Continually striving for high-end technological approaches to the problem of finding cost-and energy-effective solutions for our petroleum gobbling transportation sector will overlook other, simpler responses. We should be applying the KISS principle and advancing work at the low end of the technical spectrum, too. Bill Lear was working on an effective steam-like external combustion powerplant for city busses when he passed away. Has anyone picked up on that research ? (see comment # 2 below)
Comment
27 of 40
February 16, 2007
The much simpler, more efficient way to power transportation is by battery and electricity. Hydrogen and fuel cell are just a lot of overhead to fuel what is essentially an electric car. Why not just charge batteries with renewable wind and solar instead of wasting a lot of that energy to make an explosive gas? The grid could support a gradual switch over electric as citizens are now becoming net producers as well. New batteries from companies like A123 and AltairNano will allow 300 mile range with charge times comparable to the current liquid fuel stop/bathroom break. These technologies are here now, and the refueling infrastructure (power grid) is also here now. No need to reinvent the wheel. In 100 years people will be driving electric cars and look back on this debate kind of like we now look back on the ICE vs Stanley Steamer debate. ICE won because it was a better, more efficient, more convenient technology. Electric will win out over hydrogen fuel cells for the same reasons.
Comment
28 of 40
February 16, 2007
Geoff: I like Stirlings, but am currently more intrigued by the solid state devices in the pipeline as far as "external combustion" stuff goes. Google "Quantum well thermoelectric" and "thermophotovoltaics". That would allow a mix of both: all fuels that can burn at a decently high temperature, and electrical energy, stored or otherwise generated.
Comment
29 of 40
February 16, 2007
Actually, the US consumes 20.03 million barrels/day of oil (per de CIA web page). That is 7.3 billion barrels/year (rounded). Assuming Steven's $100 million/year war costs, that would be $13.70/bbl.
Comment
30 of 40
February 16, 2007
Actually, Steve, I think $100,000,000,000 per divided by 84,000,000 barrels per year is $1190 per barrel, so you point is even more dramatic than you made it!
Comment
31 of 40
February 16, 2007
Availability:

There is no question that the vehicle of the future is going to be a plug-in hybrid. I believe it willbe a plug=-in fuel cell hybrid.

Stuart Energy's electrolyzers use 55kwh to produce 1 kg of hydrogen, pressurized to 6,000 psi (IIRR). 1kg hydrogen is roughly the energy equivalent of 1 gallon of gasoline, but with a fuel cell you go about 30% farther due to its efficiency.

This link says that we already have 84% of the elecrical capacity in off peak hours to run plug in hybrids for all of our light duty vehicles. Off peak power is very cheap. It would also reduce most categories of emissions, except sulfur. Imagine if we could tap the tremendous avialability of wind and solar electricity to cover any additional needed to provide hydrogen for long range trips.

http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204
Comment
32 of 40
February 16, 2007
Cost:

GM and Shell have both estimated that to get 70% of all motorists within 2 miles of a hydrogen station (the "initial infrastructure", it will take 12,000 $1 million installations. That's $12 billion dollars. Compare that to the cost of another war for oil resources - $1 trillion. So what will it be - $1 trillion for oil and more terrorism against us, not to mention all the associated greehouse gases, or $12 billion for the road to energy independence? Don't think this one too hard here....

BTW, we've been spending about $100 billion/year in war and defending the Gulf since the beginning of the Kuwait war. Divide $100 billion by the 84 million barrels per year we get from the Gulf - that's $120 per barrel, or about $3.00 per gallon of product. That's one heck of a subsidy that's causing us nothing but trouble.
Comment
33 of 40
February 19, 2007
Amazing. The author's only source is the hydrogen association. The author did not even bother to provide or seek some balance.

If all we wanted was industry propoganda, we could have gone to the web site ourselves. Pathetic. If this is indicative of the quality of the research on this web site, we cannot rely on it.
Comment
34 of 40
February 21, 2007
As a vehicle moves it creates its own wind: Could the boffins not think of some way of converting this free air into energy within the vehicle
Comment
35 of 40
February 26, 2007
Dear Scott, you did not answer the question of energy in vs energy out. Actually with out use of a catalyst
or carbon or titanium nano tubules the energy equation is not good for production of H2 out of water the most readily available cheapest H2 source. But times are changing and the future will show a positive energy equation for H2 use as fuel.

Alan
Comment
36 of 40
February 28, 2007
Hydrogen gas or liquid can be but need not be (an maybe should not be) produced using fossil fuels, either as the raw material (reforming methan (CH4) to H2 and CO2, for instance) or as the source for electrical power.
Hydrogen produced from renewables is CARBON NEUTRAL energy. Hydrogen from renewables serves as the best way to "CARRY" the energy from those sources. This is the most IMPORTANT part of using Hydrogen, as an "energy carrier".
Comment
37 of 40
February 28, 2007
Further, since liquid hydrogen (cryogenic @ -253 degrees C) is a superconductor, then pipelines containing it can serve as superconducting transmission highways to deliver electrical power without the now existent power losses endured by transmission through high-tension (and resistive) wires.

Hydrogen can run an internal combustion engine more efficiently than gasoline. Fuel cells are not needed to utilize hydrogen and serve as the power source in hydrogen vehicles. Liquid hydrogen can be stored in zero pressure tanks (actually unsealed) that are surrounded by liquid air cooling jackets and high density insulation. The enrgy to volume density of these types of tanks can rival normal automobile gasoline tanks. As I mentioned earlier the energy to weight density of liquid hydrogen far outstrips any current liquid fuel.
Comment
38 of 40
February 28, 2007
Hydrogen molecules H2 have the greatest energy density (by weight) of any combustible fuel in the universe.
As a highly volatile gas it is still safer than gasoline because all free hydrogen molecules released into a normal pressure and temperature environment (1ATM, 25 degrees C) rise at 17,000 miles per hour, while gasoline is liquid in that same environment and the vapors are heavier than air, so its flammability stays on the ground.

If hydrogen gas (H2) is produced by electrolysis of water using strictly renewable energy sources and not by reforming fossil fuels, then it is carbon neutral energy. It can be liquified, put into tankers, or into pipelines and carry more energy per kilogram than any other fuel. One kilogram of liquid hydrogen has the approximate same energy as one gallon (about 3kg) of gasoline.
Comment
39 of 40
March 6, 2007
5) In terms of energy density, liquid hydrogen requires much more volume than other fuels to store the same amount of energy. Four litres of liquid hydrogen are needed to match the same energy content of one litre of gasoline. That's 4 tanker trucks on the road instead of one to fill the same station. Thats a gas tank 4 times the size of a typical one today. This is a major limitation. And will remain one until physics change...


I wish I could promote hydrogen as a viable source of energy, but it's not a source. It's a carrier.
And with advancements in other areas such as battery technology, it just isn't competitive.
Comment
40 of 40
March 6, 2007
Sean K. Barry - You bring up some interesting ideas, points and concepts that are in use today but seem impractical for a hydrogen transportation economy for numerous reasons.

1) Hydrogen is not naturally found on earth in it's pure form. It must be produced through synthetic process (syn gas) or electrolysis - which are both energy and carbon intensive processes.

3) Hydrogen is nothing more then a storage means for electricity - a battery.

4) Cryogenics @ -253c and the energy required to keep H2 at this temp for transportation through pipelines and for tankers. This is energy intensive means of storage.
Add Your Comment

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!

Register Now   Sign-In
Sign Up

Scott Sklar

View Scott Sklar's Profile
About: Scott, founder and president of The Stella Group, Ltd., in Washington, DC, is the Chair of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Energy Coalition and serves... more »

Scott's Articles

Top Six Reasons We Need a Better Definition of Clean Energy
President's Budget Maintains "Green" Commitment but Has Several Unanticipated Surprises
American Exceptionalism and Renewable Energy: What the Tea Party Missed in 2011
More »

Recent Opinion & Commentary

Will 2012 Finally be the Year of the Strong Grid?
Saving Birds and Bucks: Wind States Its Case
60,000 Californians Urge CPUC Action on Net Metering
Large-scale Molybdenum Electrodes for Manufacturing CIGS Solar Cells
Yesterday's Solar Eclipse – Tomorrow's Healthy Solar Industry

Advertise With Us

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access Featured Total Access Partners
 
Enphase Energy Renewables Academy AG (RENAC) Comment:Visions Hydrogen Education Foundation KYOCERA Solar, Inc. Idaho Department of Commerce Rittal Corporation
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters