San Diego Union Tribune: Is 'hydrogen highway' the answer?

[question everything]

Is 'hydrogen highway' the answer?

It's touted as fuel of future, but critics fret over effect on nature

By Michael Gardner
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

November 22, 2004

SACRAMENTO – When a beaming Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger steered a futuristic hydrogen-powered Hummer into a prototype filling station at Los Angeles International Airport, he illustrated both the promise and pitfalls ahead for the emerging alternative fuel.

(snip)

Hydrogen fueling stations are springing up in Los Angeles, Las Vegas and Washington, D.C. – and even Chula Vista. Public agencies are testing small fleets of hydrogen buses and delivery vehicles. Automakers are experimenting with Hummers and BMWs, not content to sacrifice power or popularity. And the oil industry is investing in the hydrogen market. Schwarzenegger has pledged to lay out a network of up to 200 fueling stations by 2010, effectively creating a $90 million "hydrogen highway" by the time novelty models are expected to trickle into showrooms.

(snip)

For hydrogen vehicles to leap from novelty to norm, assembly lines in Japan and Detroit must roll out cars that are competitively priced, safe and conveniently refueled. Those goals may not be reached on a large scale for decades, officials say. Most automakers favor fuel cells that use hydrogen mixed with oxygen to produce the electricity that propels the vehicle. There is no eight-hour layover while batteries are recharged, and eventually the price of hydrogen will be comparable to a gallon of gas, they say. Some are experimenting with traditional internal combustion engines fueled by hydrogen.

(snip)

Industry officials agree that hydrogen will not supplant gas any time soon, but they believe more alternative fuel vehicles will help ease the United States' reliance on foreign oil and benefit the environment. The only waste products are water and heat out of the tailpipes, which should slow global warming and curb smog.

So why are some leading environmentalists still alarmed? The primary reason: The Bush administration favors hydrogen produced by fossil fuels – mostly coal – or nuclear power. Most hydrogen produced today is generated by natural gas, which is not renewable... "If you make hydrogen from coal, you're just going backward," said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. "The promise of hydrogen is making it from the sun. The risk of hydrogen is making it from coal.".. Some leading environmentalists and longtime analysts urge restraint, arguing a share of the billions being invested in hydrogen should be directed toward gas-electric hybrid technology.

More..

Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20041122/news_1n22hydrogen.html

[DireStrike]

1. Yes, where is the hydrogen supposed to come from?

It takes energy to electrolyze water into H and O2.

If you burn something to get that... it's not very good for the environment at all. Nor will it necessarily be cheaper.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. Possibilities.....

>>Industry officials agree that hydrogen will not supplant gas any time soon, but they believe more alternative fuel vehicles will help ease the United States' reliance on foreign oil and benefit the environment. The only waste products are water and heat out of the tailpipes, which should slow global warming and curb smog.<<

Then what is this???

http://world.honda.com/news/2004/4041116_b.html
“Honda is taking a comprehensive approach that includes the development of both fuel cell and refueling technologies, “ said Ben Knight, Vice President Honda R&D Americas. “We feel that home refueling could play an important role in the introduction of fuel cell technology and the development of a hydrogen refueling infrastructure.”

“We have enormous respect for Honda’s technical capabilities and are excited to be part of this collaboration,” said Dr. Roger Saillant, President and Chief Executive Officer of Plug Power. “The development of a Home Energy Station represents an important milestone towards a hydrogen infrastructure and sustainable energy future.”

It takes energy to electrolyze water into H and O2.

If you burn something to get that... it's not very good for the environment at all. Nor will it necessarily be cheaper.

Use solar energy to break down water.... see above article... if Honda is big into it... YOU KNOW it will be done. No question about it.

[DireStrike]

4. HMM! Encouraging!

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. What about.....

>>For hydrogen vehicles to leap from novelty to norm, assembly lines in Japan and Detroit must roll out cars that are competitively priced, safe and conveniently refueled. Those goals may not be reached on a large scale for decades, officials say. Most automakers favor fuel cells that use hydrogen mixed with oxygen to produce the electricity that propels the vehicle. There is no eight-hour layover while batteries are recharged, and eventually the price of hydrogen will be comparable to a gallon of gas, they say. Some are experimenting with traditional internal combustion engines fueled by hydrogen.<<

Whoever wrote this article is behind the times by several years.

www.milleniumcell.com
>>The world has embarked on a fundamental shift in transportation technology. The decades-long acceptance of petroleum fuels has been replaced with growing public demand for cleaner air and reduced health risks. Issues such as environmental protection, global climate change, and energy supply security also make alternative fuel development crucial. President Bush and the US Department of Energy have developed the FreedomCAR and Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to underscore the urgent need for industry-wide changes. Similar initiatives in Europe and Asia make this truly global in scale.<<

This is the company that makes the fuel system for Chrysler's Millenium Van... it is a gel that offgasses H2.

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/IndustryInformationDisplayArticle/0,1588,374,00.html
>>PEM fuel cells generate electricity by combining oxygen from the air with hydrogen. This can be supplied to the fuel cell in a number of ways. It can be extracted from hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline and methanol or stored in a pure form in high pressure tanks. Automakers have yet to decide which system works best.

The storage system being showcased by Chrysler involves storing hydrogen in another way. It uses technology developed by Millennium Cell Inc, in which hydrogen is stored in the form of sodium borohydride. This is then mixed with water and the solution passed through a catalyst which seperates the hydrogen gas and leaves only sodium boride, or borax, as a residue.

Benefits of the system include its relative safety and its potential to extend the range of fuel cell vehicles. However, like other storage technologies there are drawbacks.<<

Don't catch this wave.... DRIVE IT... push it by learning about these companies... asking for information about these companies... investing in these companies... these technologies will revolutionize energy production... and it doesn't have to come from coal... it certainly does not. There are strains of algae that will offgas hydrogen if treated properly.... read about it at first link.... remember the movie Chain Reaction.... breaking down water to free up hydrogen... there are many ways to beat the coal issue...

www.CH2BC.org

www.PLUGPOWER.com

www.BALLARD.com

www.FUELCELLENERGY.com

[NNadir]

5. I recently had the experience of driving next to a liquid hydrogen tanker.

I was terrified, frankly.

Hydrogen is NOT an automotive fuel. I don't know how many ways there are to say this, but there is nothing dumber that attempting to use it as such.

The question of whether hydrogen can be safely manufactured (and under many circumstances the production of hydrogen is environmentally reprehensible - including production from methane) is open. Probably producing it from solar energy is extremely wasteful, but producing it under nuclear means from high temperature reactors seems to be environmentally acceptable, but almost certainly such use would need to be captive: The economics of storing and transporting hydrogen are extremely questionable. In the case of the methane-hydrogen conversion, why on earth would anyone possibly imagine that there is some kind of advantage to converting a difficult to store a gas like methane to a gas with 1) A much lower critical temperature (almost the lowest critical temperature in the universe) 2) Much lower viscosity 3) lower energy density?

For the life of me, I can't understand this morbid fascination with hydrogen. It's like people can't think.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. The economics of storing and transporting hydrogen

Nanotubes....


http://209.196.135.250/news/nanotubes.htm
One of the critical factors in nanotubes’ usefulness as a hydrogen storage medium is the ratio of stored hydrogen to carbon. According to the US Department of Energy, a carbon material needs to store 6.5% of its own weight in hydrogen to make fuel cells practical in cars. Such fuel cell cars could then travel 300 miles between refueling stops.

Researchers at MIT claim to have produced nanotube clusters with the ability to store 4.2% of their own weight in hydrogen. In recent months, scientists from the National University of Singapore have released figures for nanotubes and nanofibers that can store 10-20% of their weight in hydrogen. These results, when combined with Hypercar technologies (explained at www.hypercar.com) have the potential of transforming our transportation industry.

[NNadir]

7. I doubt that an automobile with only 20% of its fuel weight available

will be very efficient. Like most hydrogen technologies, it probably risks being extremely wasteful of energy.

In any case you will still need to transport the hydrogen. To see what the economics of this case might be you have merely to look at natural gas. It is still not economic in most places to liquify natural gas and to ship it. Natural gas at oil wells in remote parts of the world is still flared. Again, hydrogen has lower viscosity (meaning more prone to leak), lower energy density, and a higher critical temperature. Therefore the economics of piping hydrogen, even if one can store it, are still worse than natural gas. Not only that you still have to make/ the hydrogen. Making hydrogen from natural gas wastes energy in the conversion process, which involves reaction of the gas in supercritical water (steam above 370C). You dump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than you would have done if you'd simply just burned the natural gas.

I have heard all sorts of elaborate schemes for storing hydrogen in my lifetime - from metal hydrides to borohydrides to Palladium sponge. All all have accompanied with great hoopla and none of them have panned out.

I have no doubt that hydrogen storing carbon nanotubes will have specialized uses, maybe even important specialized uses. Fueling a car will not be one of them.

There are much, much, much, much better alternatives to fueling automobiles if we continue to exist long enough to continue to want or need them.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. I suspect there is a lot of "quiet investment" being put into Hydrogen

It's the only thing I can think of that would cause hydrogen technologies to be promoted so heavily.

Actually, I sense it's part of a larger plan that has already been drawn up and is waiting for the right economic/energy shock -- a massive, rushed push into nuclear with hydrogen fuel cells replacing traditional petroleum-based fuels.

I have no doubts that while nuclear could be an excellent stopgap replacement for petroleum-based fuels, I also have come to believe it will be implemented in the worst possible ways, especially if political pressure is high enough.

If we are very lucky, we can use this period (screw-ups and all) to convert to a sustainable economy here on Earth, and start developing Space for industrial use and later habitation. What are the odds of that happening? You don't want to know. (I'll tell you anyway -- about one in a hundred.)

In the past 35 years, I have seen no evidence that anyone with any political or financial power has any inclination to deal with the coming energy crises. (And you can put the word "whatsoever" next to whichever nouns you wish.) There has also been (since the 1980s) a suspicious lack of interest in addressing hunger and starvation, which will become nearly universal in the absense of petrochemical-source fertilizer.

"We've had oil crises before. This too shall pass" is Talking Point Number One. "A**hole rock stars!" is Talking Point Number Two, Why We Can't Eliminate World Hunger.

After years of qualified optimism, I'm now in a very pessimistic mood about these issues. 51% of the American voting public just put a reprobate back into office based on either their desires to "have a beer" with him, or his showy religiosity. I have basically come to realize that we are totally, royally, and lethally fucked. No nanotechnology, no space development, no search for the God Particle, no mind/machine integration, no nothin'.

Not even Big Brother.

Just violence, alcohol, and religion -- for the ~200 million survivors.

--p!
"I Dreamed I Killed 6,300,000,000 People In My Maidenform Bra."

[NickB79]

9. But even with the nuclear infrastructure, there are better fuels to be had

You can use the electricity generated by the nuclear reactors to power large chemical plants, synthesizing artifical short-chain hydrocarbons rather than cracking water to hydrogen. These would be usable (with some modifications) in modern internal-combustion engines, easier to transport and store than hydrogen, have higher energy densities, and be more benign to the environment. I'm sure NNadir can comment more, as he was the one who originally pointed this out.

[NNadir]

10. You've restated my position, but made one slight error.

I do not advocate using nuclear generated "electricity" for this purpose. I advocate using nuclear generated heat for this process. In a few years a reactor of this type will come on line in China. It will convert heat directly into chemical energy.

All electric power plants, nuclear or otherwise, except for PV and wind type solar plants, convert heat to drive turbines. All are therefore subject to the second law of thermodynamics, and all therefore must reject heat to the atmosphere and hydrosphere, lowering efficiency.

In a nuclear plant the heat is created from potential energy (binding energy of the strong nuclear force) left over from ancient supernovae in which the Uranium and Thorium was created in the collapse and explosion of those stars. (This same energy drives our geothermal resources.) In coal and oil plants, the heat is created from fossilized solar energy from light delivered millions of years ago to the planet. This fossilized energy is actually stored as chemical energy. These new types of reactors, high temperature gas cooled reactors, molten salt reactors, and pebble bed reactors (which I don't necessarily like) can be used, of course, to generate electricity, but they can also be used to drive endothermic chemical reactions (like for instance, the splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen) that result in stored - and conveniently usable - energy. Such reactors are highly efficient - especially if they generate electricity as a side product. The recovery of the heat energy as usable energy can be greater than 60%, a value that is actually enormous compared with other thermodynamic systems.

As it happens, hydrogen will be probably a very important intermediate in this process. One can convert this hydrogen, which is dangerous and expensive to transport and store into fuels that are easy to transport and store.

Note though that solar energy has an important advantage over either its nuclear or fossil competitors: Solar energy is truly renewable. I need to say this often. The state of our engineering knowledge currently makes solar energy less safe to use than nuclear energy, but I argue strongly that our responsibility to future generations - on the increasingly dropping probability that there will be future generations - dictate that we develop as many solar technologies as we can and use them as extensively as is possible. We need to accept the additional (relatively small) risk of using solar technologies. We can no longer, however, afford to accept the huge risks associated with fossil fuels.