With hydrogen, there are different types of efficiencies. There's the efficiency of producing the hydrogen and there's the efficiency of using the hydrogen. Let's first examine how hydrogen can be used in fuel cells. Since fuel cells generate electricity through a chemical process, they are not subject to the Carnot Limit (the theoretical limit on engine efficiency based on the flow of heat between two reservoirs). Fuel cells, in combination with electric motors, can achieve an efficiency of 70%, while the 30% that is lost can be used to heat up the car, the house, the hot water system (depending on where the fuell cell system is located). By comparison, internal combustion engines (as used in traditional cars, mowers and mobile power generators) only achieve efficiencies of around 30%.
The image accompanying this article is an example of such a combined system, in this case a Siemens 125kW fuel cell system that supplies both heat and electricity. It's now in its pre-commercial stage, after a 100 kW prototype system has operated successfully in the Netherlands and Germany for over 20,000 hours.
http://tinyurl.com/2kyt9y
In terms of efficiency, the production of hydrogen does require a lot of energy, indeed it will take more electricity to produce hydrogen than the electricity that hydrogen will deliver as output. After all, some loss will always occur in any production process. so that may not look very efficient at first glance. Nevertheless, this situation can be mitigated by carefully selecting the time of producing the hydrogen. An intelligent system can use surplus energy from renewable sources, such as solar power at midday when the sun is at its peak and when demand is low, or wind power when there is more wind than the electricity grid can handle. The beauty of hydrogen is that it can be produced cheaply at times when there is an abundance or a surplus of energy supply.
The distributed use of power that is possible with hydrogen also compares well with the centralization that comes with plants that are powered by fossil fuel. Coal-fired plants can be less than 30% efficient, which means that they require huge amounts of water to cool down. Such plants cannot be stopped and started at the switch of a button, but they require long lead times daily to achieve their peak and they cannot be turned off completely. Even when such plants are supplemented by more expensive nuclear or oil-based plants, and despite all the planning of interconnected grids and all the forecasting of peaks, electrical grids still experience black-outs because they cannot handle the peaks.
So, in the distributed model, there will be numerous points where electricity is generated, e.g. by solar panels on roofs, by thermal solar plants, by wind turbines in backyards and by larger wind turbines in the fields. Each of these points could produce hydrogen, while hydrogen can be easily kept and transported to be used when and where needed.
Efficiency relates to the question what is the most economic choice. Free markets are best in working out the when and where, but for free markets to work well, there must be customer choice, entrepreneurial freedom and easy access to technology and entry to the market for new suppliers, all of which is hard in a centralized model. Currently, the associated environmental and security costs aren't well reflected in he supply of fossil fuel. If we further take into account the efficiencies resulting from a more distributed model, hydrogen becomes even more economic in comparison.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 69 ( 1 removed by Sam Carana )
http://physorg.com/news107180850.html
I think Lovins refers to this as "cogeneration". The myth that is floating around about hydrogen is that it is prohibitively inefficient. However, as you state, it is more than competitive relative to gas. Also, I read ("Winning the Oil Endgame, p. 242) that oil companies will make more profit on oil by taking the hydrogen out of oil (hydrocarbon) instead of adding hydrogen to oil in the refining process. They could then sell the hydrogen (at a higher price due to its greater end-use efficiency), and make money on the remaining carbon through carbon caps trading.
Your last paragraph is exactly right. Lovins has called for removing all subsidies from all energy production. That way, free markets can really (for once) be free. If we were having to pay for all of the real costs of gas at the pump, then hydrogen would be a reality within a decade. Instead, we are only having to pay a subsidized price. But even with that, there is already (as the Siemens equipment you highlight shows) promising steps in the direction of a hydrogen economy. I think the question really is not "if", but "when".
"So, in the distributed model, there will be numerous points where electricity is generated, e.g. by solar panels on roofs, by thermal solar plants, by wind turbines in backyards and by larger wind turbines in the fields. Each of these points could produce hydrogen, while hydrogen can be easily kept and transported to be used when and where needed."
The problem with Lovins suggestion of a point of use production of Hydrogen is that each "point of use" utilizing solar panels would require an average of over 200 acres of panels for fuel production. With wind the acreage would rise to over 1500.
that is of course an average depending on need.
Here's how I came to these figures.
The U.S. uses approx. 400 million gallons of gasoline each day, the approx. number of existing service stations in the U.S. is 168 thousand, the total amount of land in solar panels required to produce that much fuel by making hydrogen about the size of N.Y. state.
Wind turbins would require 1.2 million sq kilometers.
You can check my math
Hydrogen has a lot of promise but it's feasibility to be used widespread is doubtful.
From:
http://greenoptions.com/2007/08/21/environmental_defense_are_hydrogen_cars_the_answer
"Honda is the first company to put a fuel cell demonstration car into the hands of ordinary consumers. Yet as Steve Ellis, Honda's Manager of Fuel Cell Vehicles, told me hydrogen-powered cars are not likely to be mainstream for another 10 to 20 years. Many industry analysts put the number at well over 20 years, and some think it will never fly. All agree it's not a near-term solution."
From:
http://www.issues.org/20.3/romm.html
Safety:
"Hydrogen burns nearly invisibly, and people have unwittingly stepped into hydrogen flames."
"Yet hydrogen has its own major safety issues. It is highly flammable, with an ignition energy that is 20 times smaller than that of natural gas or gasoline. It can be ignited by cell phones or by electrical storms located miles away.
Some 22 percent or more of hydrogen accidents are caused by undetected hydrogen leaks. These leaks occur "despite the special training, standard operating procedures, protective clothing, electronic flame gas detectors provided to the limited number of hydrogen workers," points out Russell Moy, former group leader for energy storage programs at Ford, in the November 2003 Energy Law Journal. Moy concludes that "with this track record, it is difficult to imagine how hydrogen risks can be managed acceptably by the general public when wide-scale deployment of the safety precautions would be costly and public compliance impossible to ensure." Thus, major innovations in safety will be required before a hydrogen economy is practical."
Cost:
"First, the upfront cost is very high: more than $600 billion just to provide hydrogen fuel for 40 percent of the cars on the road, according to Argonne. A reasonable cost estimate for the initial hydrogen infrastructure, derived from Royal Dutch/Shell figures, is $5,000 per car."
"They are extremely expensive, currently costing around $1 million (for example, the GM SequelHonda's FCX). Most of this cost is in the fuel cells. If history is any guide, it will take decades for the cost to come down sufficiently."
"There's no fueling station infrastructure for hydrogen. Building a hydrogen fuel infrastructure will be very expensive. A National Renewable Energy Laboratory report estimates the cost at $837 million [PDF]. Others say it could be tens of billions of dollars."
"Two points are clear. First, we cannot wait for hydrogen cars to address global warming. Second, we should not pursue a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector that would undermine efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the electric generation sector. Yet that is precisely what a hydrogen car strategy would do for the next few decades. For near-term deployment, hydrogen would almost certainly be produced from fossil fuels. Yet running a fuel cell car on such hydrogen in 2020 would offer no significant life cycle greenhouse gas advantage over the 2004 Prius running on gasoline."
From:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030311074526.htm
Science Daily — Even with aggressive research, the hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle will not be better than the diesel hybrid (a vehicle powered by a conventional engine supplemented by an electric motor) in terms of total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, says a study recently released by MIT's Laboratory for Energy and the Environment (LFEE).
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.
There is a need for clean energy now we can't wait twenty for hydrogen to begin to become affordable, at this point in time there is only one feasible energy source available and that is nuclear.
Similarly, the output of wind turbines varies a lot with the size of the turbine and their location. Note that wind turbines can easily be combined with agricultural use of the land and compliment solar power as their output can continue after sunset.
More continuous are hydro and geothermal power. Some argue that it would be cost-efficient for geothermal power from Iceland to provide electricity to continental Europe. There is a proposal is to drill 3.8km through the Earth's crust into the hot basalt below Iceland, in order to tap into temperatures of up to 600C and generate enough geothermal electricity to power up to 1.5 million homes in Europe. Electricity would be transported over a 1,200-mile long ocean-floor cable to connect to Britain's national grid before reaching Europe's continent.
The Grand Inga power station, a proposed hydropower dam in the Congo River, will have a planned output of 39 gigawatts, twice the power of China's Three Gorges, which currently is the world's largest dam.
There is enough clean and renewable energy in the world to meet all our demands. If only we could harnass a fraction of the energy contained in thunderstorms, we could easily meet all the energy demand of the world.
That 25% would more than suffice, given the abundancy of clean and renewable energy (see my comment above) and given that hydrogen can be produced in a distributed way using surplus energy from solar and wind power (as the article explains). Moreover, it would be preferable to the current dominance of fossil fuel, in the light of environmental, economic, health and political considerations. Nonetheless, as the article also points out, free markets are best in working out the when and where.
It's more likely that hydrogen will be produced from water, by means of electrolysis, using electricity from clean and renewable sources such as solar and wind power, since this wouldn't add greenhouse gases. In cars, I do foresee that fuel cells will compete with Lithium-ion batteries for many years. As I see things develop, the internal-combustion engine in cars will be gradually replaced by hybrids such as the Prius, by plug-in hybrids and eventually by electric cars that run entirely on Lithium-ion batteries, such as the Tesla.
Simultaneously, there will be a growing market for both fuel cells and Lithium-ion batteries, in order to store surplus power from wind and solar for household and industrial use. Once mass-produced, prices, size and weight will come down for both of them, while their capacity and performance will increase. Just look how the battery in your cellphone now is a lot lighter, smaller and lasts a lot longer than it did only a few years back. Nevertheless, Lithium-ion batteries will remain at a disadvantage, since recharging returns the battery only just under its previous charged state, so the battery will deteriorate over time. Consequently, I can see the Hydrogen Economy emerge well within two decades.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977123011
Your math may be accurate, given your assumptions. But Lovins approach is an integrated approach, hydrogen being the last component. 400M gallons/day becomes 200M gallons/day, given a shift to end-use efficiency (ultra-light materials presently available for transportation manufacturing - and already used in manufacturing new airplanes). Add hybrid power trains, and that 200M gallons/day becomes 100M gallons/day. Hybrid technology ultimately will not compete with fuel cells, but will pave the way for their introduction to transportation. Fuel cells will become well adapted for transportation uses as the technology improves through initial deployments as stationary power suppliers in buildings.
Sam: "The solar panels that are typically installed on the roofs of houses, offices, garages and car-covers do require relatively large areas, but that is no problem since these roofs aren't used for anything else...."
Exactly! A comparable study suggested that 100 sq. mi. of solar panels could provide all of the electrical demand of the U.S. Critics contended that environmentalists would strongly protest 100 sq. mi. set aside for solar panels. But it is a red herring.
100 sq. mi. is only 10,000 contiguous miles, and we have many more miles in our highway systems. I don't know why our highway systems couldn't be lined with concentrated solar devices, described here:
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=43336
and here:
http://www.stirlingenergy.com/whatisastirlingengine.htm
I recently read also that 2 - 10MW solar stations are being installed in Ontarion, Canada. If solar works in Ontario, I think it would probably work about anywhere.
http://www.renewableenergyaccess.com/rea/news/story?id=49904
Steve's article did very little to discuss the safety issues surrounding hydrogen,
people who as their job handle hydrogen are required to receive special training
and equipment to safely handle hydrogen, there's a reason for that special training
and it goes way beyond "it's lighter than air and it dissipates quicker".
"That 25% would more than suffice,"
But Sam the experts already disagree with you they say that this is NOT enough.
A lot of supposition and wishful thinking in you're guy's posts. Future possibility,
Yes.
But enough experts that I have quoted cast a doubt on any reasonable use of
hydrogen anytime in the near future.
Sam and Steve, You two are ignoring the hurdles that will need to be overcome
before hydrogen can become a widely used fuel, you both are looking at the end
point (coming sometime in the unforeseeable future) and decrying how wonderful
the world will be without taking into account the journey that needs to be undertaken
to get there.
You two must be LOA practitioners ;-)
It's estimated that there will be 800 million vehicles on the planet by the year 2020
with the vast majority of them being powered by internal combustion engines, how
long will it take to change those vehicles out for fuel cell vehicles not to mention new
demand?
There is no hydrogen infrastructure it will need to be developed and implemented at a
cost of million if not billions of dollars and how much time will that take?
Sorry guys all thing considered Your dream hydrogen world is a Loooong way
off if it even ever comes to be.
This says very little. Perhaps you have a link to a source. I have given a link to Lovins' statements re: the relative safety of hydrogen.
Dan: "...enough experts that I have quoted cast a doubt on any reasonable use of
hydrogen anytime in the near future."
And I'll repeat this quote:
"Those who think it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those doing it." Venture capitalist, Rober Shaw in Lovins, "Winning the Oil Endgame", p. 230.
Dan. You're not saying anything - you're just "nay-saying".
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid205.php
"Dan. You're not saying anything - you're just "nay-saying"."
I've posted plenty of fact from experts and those directly related to the field.
I'm sorry you don't like the facts I have posted.
I am far from simply na-saying.
BTW Steve, I'll take the opinion of an expert in the field over your venture capatalist every time
From NASA's
SAFETY STANDARD FOR
HYDROGEN AND HYDROGEN
SYSTEMS
c. Ignition.
Fires and explosions have occurred in various components of
hydrogen systems as a result of a variety of ignition sources. Ignition
sources have included mechanical sparks from rapidly closing valves,
electrostatic discharges in ungrounded particulate filters, sparks from
electrical equipment, welding and cutting operations, catalyst
particles, and lightning strikes near the vent stack. Table A2.1 lists
additional ignition sources.
d. Fire and Explosions.
A potential fire hazard always exists when hydrogen is present.
(1) GH2 diffuses rapidly with air turbulence increasing the rate of
GH2 dispersion. Evaporation can rapidly occur in an LH2
spill; resulting in a flammable mixture forming over a
considerable distance. Although ignition sources may not be
present at the leak or spill location, fire could occur if the
movement of the flammable mixture causes it to reach an
ignition source.
Example: Observation alone is not a reliable technique for
detecting pure hydrogen-air fires or assessing their
severity. A fire resulted from an accident in which
a small leak developed. The equipment was
shutdown and the flame appeared to diminish;
however, molten metal drippings from the
equipment indicated a more severe fire was in
progress.
(2) A deflagration could result if a mixture within flammability
limits is ignited at a single point.
(3) A detonation could occur if the GH2-air mixture is within
detonability limits and an appropriate energy source is
available. A deflagration could transform into a detonation if
there is confinement or a mechanism for flame acceleration.
(4) Flash fires or boiling liquid expanding vapor explosions
(BLEVE) could occur when an external source of thermal
energy is heating LH2 or SLH2 and there is a path to the
surroundings.
From Air products safety gram #4
Flammability
The wide flammability range, 4% to 74% in air, and
the small amount of energy required for ignition
necessitate special handling to prevent the inadvertent
mixing of hydrogen with air. Care should
be taken to eliminate sources of ignition such as
sparks from electrical equipment, static electricity
sparks, open flames, or any extremely hot objects.
Hydrogen and air mixtures, within the flammable
range, can explode and may burn with a pale blue,
almost invisible flame.
Safety Considerations
The hazards associated with handling hydrogen
are fire, explosion, and asphyxiation. Although
hydrogen tends to dissipate quickly, the potential
for forming and igniting flammable mixtures
containing hydrogen may be higher than for other
flammable gases because:
1. Hydrogen migrates quickly through small
openings.
2. The minimum ignition energy for flammable
mixtures containing hydrogen is extremely low.
Hydrogen burns with an almost invisable flame
and severeburns may result from unknowingly
walking into a hydrogen fire. The fire and explosion
hazards can be controlled by appropriate
design and operating procedures. Preventing the
formation of combustible fuel-oxidant mixtures and
removing or otherwise inerting potential sources
of ignition (electric spark, static electricity, open
flames, etc.) in areas where the hydrogen will be
used are essential. Careful evacuation and purge
operations should be used to prevent the formation
of flammable or explosive mixtures. Adequate
ventilation will help reduce the possible formation
of flammable mixtures in the event of a hydrogen
leak and will also eliminate the potential hazard of
asphyxiation.
You two are glossing over the safety issues. (or maybe lovins is) It is and will be a concern especially if we ever get to your dream hydrogen society.
Well at least you post something with a little substance, but there is little here that shows hydrogen to be any more dangerous than gasoline or natural gas. No one is glossing over safety issues. Maybe you're exaggerating them, which is a bit ironic, since you seem to minimize dangers associated with nuclear energy.
Dan: "I'll take the opinion of an expert in the field over your venture capatalist every time...."
Well, Lovins qualifies as an expert, and he quotes the venture capitalist. You refer to "experts", who "...cast a doubt on any reasonable use of hydrogen anytime in the near future." The point is that the use of hydrogen is already in motion. It's already drawing investments. "Near future..." is relative. I don't know if you think 2025 to 2050 qualifies as "near future," but that is the potential time frame Lovins projects as reasonable, if we have a mind to do it. But if we listen to folks like you, who are infected with a "no-can-do" mentality, well then maybe it won't happen.
Now for the specific safety issues, the reference for which I've given you before:
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf
1. Ignition: Hydrogen does ignite easily, needing 14 times less energy than natural gas, but that's of dubious relevance because even natural gas can be ignited by a static-electricity spark. Unlike natural gas, however, leaking hydrogen encountering an ignition source is far likelier to burn than to explode, even inside a building,
because it burns at concentrations far below its lower explosive limit. Ignition also requires a fourfold higher minimum concentration of hydrogen than of gasoline vapor. In short, in the vast majority of cases, leaking hydrogen, if lit, will burn but not explode. And in the rare cases where it might explode, its theoretical explosive power per unit volume of gas is 22 times weaker than that of gasoline vapor. It is not, as has been claimed, 'essentially a liquid or gaseous form of dynamite.'"
2. Flammability: "If ignited, hydrogen burns rapidly with a nonluminous flame that can't readily scorch you at a distance, emitting only one-tenth the radiant heat of a hydrocarbon fire and burning 7% cooler than gasoline. Although firefighters dislike hydrogen's clear flame because they need a viewing device to see it in daylight, victims generally aren't burned unless they're actually in the flame, nor are they choked by smoke.
Lovins states: "The hydrogen industry has an enviable safety record spanning more than a half-century. Any fuel is hazardous and needs due care, but hydrogen's hazards are different and generally more tractable than those of hydrocarbon fuels."
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid205.php
"which is a bit ironic, since you seem to minimize dangers associated with nuclear energy."
LOL, I was thinking the same thing about you only in reverse. The safety record of nuclear power generation is exemplary yet you and many other environmentalists insist it is not safe. LOL
"Well, Lovins qualifies as an expert, and he quotes the venture capitalist."
Steve you are priceless, you think because an "expert" (lovins) quotes a venture capitalist it gives validity to the venture capitalist?
"Now for the specific safety issues, the reference for which I've given you before:"
Do you have any other references than RMI? RMI offers only general supportive information, they don't even get into the details of how the use of hydrogen energy
will be accomplished, "they say we can do it", without addressing the massive problems
That need to be overcome before hydrogen can become the widespread fuel of the future they claim. It's NOT enough to have a dream you have to have a PLAN and RMI doesn't have a plan.
"1. Ignition: Hydrogen does ignite easily, needing 14 times less energy than natural gas,"
So you're saying because hydrogen isn't as likely to explode that's better? And when your fueling up your car at the local hydrogen service station and pull up to that hydrogen pump who's safeguards have failed and step into the invisible conflagration taking place and get fried it's NOT a big deal?
"2. Flammability:"
Oh yah it's not burning as hot as gas so that makes it O.K. Well you go put you're wife's hot curling iron on your arm for three seconds and then do the same with a lighter and then you tell me that the lower temperature of the curling iron made it O.K.
""The hydrogen industry has an enviable safety record spanning more than a half-century."
Yes, because of the safeguards!
I'm not saying the safety issues of hydrogen is not manageable, I'm saying you and Sam are, pie in the sky ignoring them.
Exemplary? You're kidding. You know that nuclear plant in Japan, which (the Japanese admitted) was not prepared for a recent earthquake? It's been shut down pending investigations. According to the Washington Post, "Japan's 55 nuclear reactors, which supply 30 percent of the country's electricity, have had a long string of accidents and coverups."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071700130.html?hpid=moreheadlines
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/18/asia/japan.php
Back to hydrogen....
Read the exchange carefully, then you will understand your mischaracterization here.
Dan: "RMI offers only general supportive information, they don't even get into the details of how the use of hydrogen energy will be accomplished...."
Actually, they do, and I have linked the sources many times.
Dan: "...massive problems..."
Dramatic, aren't you?
Dan: "...need to be overcome before hydrogen can become the widespread fuel of the future they claim. It's NOT enough to have a dream you have to have a PLAN and RMI doesn't have a plan."
Absolutely pitiful! I've posted links. I've given you the references to RMIs plan repeatedly. Once again, Dan:
"Winning the Oil Endgame," Lovins, et. al.
http://www.oilendgame.com/ReadTheBook.html
Read it. Then you'll know what Lovins is talking about.
Dan: "I'm not saying the safety issues of hydrogen is not manageable, I'm saying you and Sam are, pie in the sky ignoring them."
No. What I'm saying (Lovins is saying) is that the risks are manageable - at least as manageable as risks of using gasoline or natural gas, if not more so.
Not at all comparable. Here, this might help:
Lingering perceptions that hydrogen is unusually dangerous are likely to be dispelled by the kinds of compelling videotaped demonstrations now becoming available, such as a comparison of a hydrogen fire with a gasoline fire. First, a hydrogen leak was created, assuming a very unlikely triple failure of redundant protective devices (industry norms for hydrogen leak detection and safety interlocks are convincingly effective). The tested leak, deliberately caused at the highest- pressure location, discharged the entire 1.54-kg hydrogen inventory of the fuel-cell car in ~100 s, but the resulting vertical flame plume raised the car's interior temperature by at most 1–2
F° (0.6–1.1 C°), and its outside temperature nearest the flame by no more than a car experiences sitting in the sun. The passenger compartment was unharmed. But then in the second test, a 2.5- fold-lower-energy leak from a 1.6-mm (1/16") hole in a gasoline fuel line gutted the car's interior and would have killed anyone trapped inside.40 Because the hydrogen-leak test didn't damage the car, both tests were conducted successively using the same car.41
The link (once again):
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf
Dan: "So you're saying because hydrogen isn't as likely to explode that's better? And when your fueling up your car at the local hydrogen service station and pull up to that hydrogen pump who's safeguards have failed and step into the invisible conflagration taking place and get fried it's NOT a big deal?"
Is misrepresentation you best rhetorical tool? What leads you to expect that hydrogen will be immensely more dangerous than gasoline or natural gas? This scenario you paint is no more likely than a gasoline explosion at a filling station.
So, here we are now, in the opening of the 21st Century in an Entrenched Fossil-Fuel Global Economy... But taken at face value on its own merits, Isn't the viability of a Hydrogen Economy a 'real life creature' in its own right? From What quarter will its right to exist be controlled? ;)
Isn't perspective a large part of seeing the potential of a Hydrogen Economy?
Steve, you can repost lovins material again and again and again, his information doesn't cancel out the facts I have posted. Lovins has no greater credibility than the experts I have quoted.
It is simply you opinion and you are welcome to your opinion.
"What leads you to expect that hydrogen will be immensely more dangerous than gasoline or natural gas?"
"Immensely"? The information I posted from NASA and Air products indicate hydrogen requires special handling and holds a higher hazard.
"Exemplary?"
Yes! Exemplary, 13,000+ operating years with only two serious accidents.
"We will conduct an investigation from the ground up. But I think fundamentally we have confirmed that our safety measures worked," he said. "It is hard to make everything go perfectly."
Ahh, how many people were effected by the accident in Japan? Answer none.
David,
No one is objecting to investigating the hydrogen economy, the information posted here in this discussion is proof that the investigation is well underway.
Unacceptable when it comes to nuclear energy plants.
Dan: "Ahh, how many people were effected by the accident in Japan? Answer none."
IF true, that was extremely lucky.
Dan: "'We will conduct an investigation from the ground up. But I think fundamentally we have confirmed that our safety measures worked,' he said."
"Japan's 55 nuclear reactors, which supply 30 percent of the country's electricity, have had a long string of accidents and coverups."
Nuclear is out. If a politician asks for one dime ($50B in loan guarantees is being requested by the nuclear industry) to support an otherwise dying, dangerous industry, I will vote against him/her, I will work against him/her, and I will contribute $$$ to his/her opponent. It is amazing to me that you severely minimize the risks associated with nuclear energy while maximizing those associated with hydrogen.
Dan: "The information I posted from NASA and Air products indicate hydrogen requires special handling and holds a higher hazard."
The information you posted lists risks and safety considerations. It says nothing of the risks and safety consideratins relative to gasoline and/or natural gas. I've located the manual from which you pulled this information. It's a technical manual for managing hydrogen risks. If it compares hydrogen to hydrocarbons at all, hydrogen comes up favorably as often as not. Of course, Lovins says nothing different from that.
Dan: "...you can repost lovins material again and again and again, his information doesn't cancel out the facts I have posted."
Yes. Particularly if you don't read it. Also..."The information you posted lists risks and safety considerations. It says nothing (see above)...."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001881.html
Firm Applies To Expand Nuclear Plant In Maryland
Due to the rise in fossil fuel costs and the concern of GHGs nuclear will play a greater part in the future power production and the incentives are already in place.
I would support governmental loan guarantees to provide more clean safe energy sources for our country with nuclear energy.
"It is amazing to me that you severely minimize the risks associated with nuclear energy while maximizing those associated with hydrogen."
Well apparently to bring up the safety issues of wide spread hydrogen usage to you is maximizing the concerns, when I've already posted that I think they can be manageable. My posting of these safety concerns is mostly in response to your unwillingness to even acknowledge the special challenges widespread hydrogen use will bring about. You're trying to say that hydrogen is no different in use than natural gas of petroleum which the facts clearly show there are special properties that hydrogen has that must be addressed.
And also I guess bringing up the safety track record of nuclear power is minimizing the concerns but every example of an "accident" you bring up is an example of the safeguards working to make sure a tragedy has not taken place.
I don't have a problem with hydrogen fuel at all I just don't think it's the panacea you do or will turn into the fuel of the future you and Lovins hope it will.
With the development of biofuels from algae that can be run in a lot of the vehicles on the road today without an intensive restructuring of the fuel delivery systems of the world, without the massive amounts of land required, without the cost. that is the direction I see our future vehicle fuel heading.
Biofuels from algae? And where do you suppose these algal farms/harvesting zones will be?
But has every possibility really been considered? Aren't there any that might make one or the other more or less plausible?
Consider this: The moon and sun provide to the surface of the Earth one of the greatest sources of kinetic energy by the nature of the kinetic energy they engage in year in and year out, every day... their movements in space... This translates most directly on Earth to kinetic movements in that sloshy stuff... Water ... Massive amounts of energy are transfered from the gravitational movement of the 'Heavenly Bodies' to gigantic amounts of mass on the Earth (the world's oceans). And this input of Energy is Free of initial charge in that the energy used to start this stream was used at the inception of our Solar System...
Tides, Dimitri, I'm talking about Tides...
Consider the number of offshore Oil Production Platforms currently sucking oil from within and beneath the crust of the earth like so many determined mosquitoes...
Each of those platforms experiences the energy from those heavenly bodies (the rise and fall of the oceans). Suppose those platforms were used to transfer that rising and falling energy into something useful, like air pressure generation, then used to power other energy conversions such as electricity or generation of Hydrogen fuel...
The point is that there are more solutions out there than obstacles... It's always been that way...
What is the source of resistance?
No body is talking about picking a date and flipping a switch to a new 'system' ...
Horses are still, even today, known to supply their 'Horse Power' to do work...
"Dan... I'm just wondering where the strong resistance to the Hydrogen Economy idea is coming from... It does seem very vehement even…"
Where? I don't see it.
I see people making the case that hydrogen is not the most reasonable way to go.
"Biofuels from algae? And where do you suppose these algal farms/harvesting zones will be?"
The best idea I have heard from the algae to biofuel industry is to locate the growing and harvesting near power generation plants, the flue gasses from the power plants are pumped through the algae and the C02 in the flue gasses feeds the algae reducing the power plants carbon output.
"Consider this:"
We must consider all reasonable ways of generating electricity in the future.
"What is the source of resistance?"
Again what resistance?
"No body is talking about picking a date and flipping a switch to a new 'system' …"
Why go with a fuel that gives so little energy out for the energy put in and will take billions to incorporate in to society when we have more reasonable alternatives available?
A long way from application to construction, and a new administration will deal with the subsidies they say they will require to expand.
Dan: "I would support governmental loan guarantees...."
You have to. Nuclear couldn't make it without them. On the other hand, Lovins favors termination of all energy subsidies.
Asked by Thomas Friedman: "And what would Amory ask Presidential candidates if he could ask anything?"
"'How would you feel about de-subsidizing the entire energy sector so that everything could compete on merit and honest prices?' Amory asked. 'Most of the foolish stuff we've got that has gotten us into this mess was bought because we leveraged private-sector money into stupid places it wouldn't have gone otherwise by subsidizing them more than other stuff. Energy policy is not based on rationality. It's based on lobbying and campaign contributions, basically corrupt practices.'"
https://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid281.php
Dan: "Well apparently to bring up the safety issues of wide spread hydrogen usage to you is maximizing the concerns, when I've already posted that I think they can be manageable."
Ok. Then you agree with Lovins, who says pretty much the same thing.
Dan: "...unwillingness to even acknowledge the special challenges widespread hydrogen use will bring about."
No. I posted: "Any fuel is hazardous and needs due care, but hydrogen's hazards are different and generally more tractable than those of hydrocarbon fuels."
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf
Also, this is from DoE Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE):
"All fuels are dangerous because they are highly chemical reactive. It is this reactivity that makes fuels excellent sources of energy. Hydrogen is not inherently more danger-ous than other fuels, such as natural gas or gasoline, but its properties are unique and must be handled with appropriate care. In many ways, hydrogen is safer than other fuels."
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/
tech_validation/pdfs/fcm06r0.pdf
Now, it seems like we have reached some agreement here. Progress!
I've never claimed hydrogen is a panacea, and neither has Lovins. If you read his work, you'd know that. Actually, he sees "end-use efficiency" as probably more important than hydrogen, and states that it is more urgent that those technologies be put in place first - e.g., ultralight, super-strong carbon fiber composites in manufacturing transportation vehicles - cars, trucks, planes. Hydrogen can make sense ONLY in conjunction with end-use efficiency.
There are many aspects to Lovins' plan (of which you apparently not aware he has a plan), hydrogen being only one aspect, though an important one.
Just because they don't get reported in the liberal media doesn't mean the nuclear industry has an "exemplary" track record:
Nuclear track record:
http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html
http://www.bellona.org/subjects/Incidents_and_accidents
http://technology.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19526193.500&feedId=earth_rss20
And, in addition to the accident in Japan:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,494707,00.html
Certainly better than hydrocarbons, except you still have the disasterous environmental problem of coal mining - especially mountain top mining.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977104953
Dan: "...without an intensive restructuring of the fuel delivery systems of the world..."
Actually, that might be a good thing. Think no more tankers, tanker trucks, oil spills, etc. Distributive generation has far more advantages relative to centralized power sources with the necessity for massive distribution systems.
Dan: "...without the massive amounts of land required..."
You mean roofs, parking lots, and along interstate highways? Windfarms on family farms might just save the remaining family farms by providing income and still allow farming.
Dan: "...without the cost."
From Lovins:
Profitable solutions for oil, climate, and proliferation
Raymond Williams wrote, "To be truly radical is to make hope possible, not despair
convincing." Problems like climate change, oil dependence, and nuclear proliferation seem so huge and daunting that energy policy seems like a stupid multiple-choice test: "Would you prefer to die of (a) climate change, (b) oil wars, or (c) nuclear holocaust?" Yet if we take economics and technologies seriously, the right answer is the one usually omitted—(d) none of the above— because all of the conventionally dreadful answers are both unnecessary and uneconomic. To see how, let's start with climate.
Climate protection, like the Hubble Space Telescope's mirror, got spoiled by a sign error: in fact, climate solutions are not costly but profitable, because saving fuel costs less than buying fuel. Many leading companies are making billions of dollars' profit by cutting their carbon intensity or emissions at rates of 5–8%/y.1 When politicians who lament climate protection's supposed costs, burdens, and sacrifices join the parallel universe of practitioners who routinely achieve profits, jobs, and competitive advantage by wasting less fuel, the political obstacles will dissolve faster than any glacier.
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Climate/C07-08_ProfitableSolutions.pdf
You have so many misconceptions about hydrogen. I'm really beginning to get tired of posting the corrections.
There is energy loss in ANY conversion, but conversion to hydrogen is at least comparable to conversion from crude to gasoline or coal to your electrical meter. Hydrogen's superiority is in its end-use efficiency.
"A hydrogen fuel-cell car can therefore convert hydrogen energy into motion about 2–3 times as efficiently as a normal car converts gasoline energy into motion: depending on how it's designed and run, a good fuel-cell system is about 50–70% efficient, hydrogen-to-electricity,19 while a typical car engine's efficiency from gasoline to output shaft averages only about 15–17% efficient.20 (Both systems then incur further minor losses to drive the wheels.) This means you can drive several times as far on a gallon-equivalent (in energy content) of hydrogen in a fuel-cell car as on a gallon of gasoline in an engine-driven car. Conversely, hydrogen costing several times as much as gasoline per unit of energy contained can thus cost the same per mile driven. Since you buy automotive fuel to get miles, not energy, ignoring such differences in end-use efficiency is a serious distortion, and accounts for much of the misinformation being published about hydrogen's high cost." (pp. 5-6)
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E03-05_20HydrogenMyths.pdf
Re: manufacture of fuel cells and electrolyzers/reformers, I guess you could make the case that computers were expensive in the early days too. In large measure, though, it would be hard to argue that they have been an expense - or have "...take(n) billions to incorporate in to society."
There are so many sceptics of Hydrogen. Proof is in the pudding and I will say it again the plant my Father worked at in Detroit Michigan has been running off Hydrogen Produced on site since 1960 and no one has gotten blown up or killed from it. Do a little research on how many people have died in Petroleum fires since 1960. Hydrogen dissipates and burns at such a fast rate that most people who do come in contact with it when it lites off gets flash burns. On the other hand most people who come into contact with petroleum get charcoaled because it hangs near the ground and burns slower. Steve between Solar and Wind Power you could convert all the Hydrogen you need to run this nation and when I hear things like it would take 600Billion dollars to create such a system. That makes me think of how much money we as a nation have spent on the war in Iraq. Thats just the money and not the cost in our Soldiers Lives. Just think if we spent 600 Billion on a fuel system that would make us all but independant of the Middle East for our petroleum. Now you want to talk about a power source. Think about the jobs that would be created here in the USA building a Hydrogen infastructure. Its going to take a lot of people to quit talking and start doing. Think about the surface area in the UNITED STATES in terms of Roofs on houses. The Sun is so underused. What about a Solar Shingle. A roof that has metal shingles could very easily be adapted with solar electric cells.
Steve keep fighting the good fight because its worth fighting.
http://www.americanhydrogenassociation.org/ahahindenburg.html
Let me also draw attention to the journal of this association, appropriately called Hydrogen Today, at:
http://www.americanhydrogenassociation.org/H2Today18-1.pdf
Hydrogen-driven cars are indeed available today, have a look at:
http://intergalactichydrogen.com/
Remember what Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger said back in 2004: "An early network of 150 to 200 hydrogen-fueling stations throughout the State (approximately one station every 20 miles on the State's major highways) would make hydrogen fuel available to the vast majority of Californians. Studies show that California's Hydrogen Highway Network is achievable by 2010 and will help demonstrate the economic and technical viability of hydrogen technologies. The California Fuel Cell Partnership and others estimate that this initial low-volume fueling network will cost approximately $90 million, the majority of this funding coming from private investment by energy companies, automakers, high-tech firms, and other companies."
http://tinyurl.com/cdtpn
"Nuclear couldn't make it without them." How so? The feds only guarantee the money will get paid back to the investors which makes it more appealing to the financiers the government doesn't give them the money, it is NOT a subsidy, besides the recent economics of generating power from nuclear shows it can compete with most other power generation sources and even ends up costing customers less.
"No. I posted:" No Steve you have been trying to downplay the hazards of hydrogen by making claims like "it doesn't burn as hot or it's more likely to burn than to explode so that puts it on a par with gasoline which is not even close in comparison with the hazards of hydrogen. you ask the question and are very careful to group gasoline and natural gas together when making hazard comparisons which even those two as so dissimilar they are in difference categories of hazardous materials but is suits your argument to do so.
BTW Steve I have a firefighting background I understand conflagrations and flammable liquid fires from a practical stand point NOT a theoretical standpoint (although I understand a lot of that also) I have fought gasoline fires and oil fires and even though I have never responded to a compressed gas fire emergency I have done the practical part of the training involving real fire.
If your going to lump these hazardous materials together you would be better to put hydrogen and compressed gas together and stop trying to compare the minutia and equal them out for the benefit of your argument.
"Certainly better than hydrocarbons, except you still have the disasterous environmental problem of coal mining - especially mountain top mining." I don't see how the two are related.
"You mean roofs, parking lots, and along interstate highways? Windfarms on family farms might just save the remaining family farms by providing income and still allow farming."
Take the amount of land I've posted before and quadruple it (or more) If you're going to get to your hydrogen economy it's going to take that much to produce the electricity to produce the hydrogen required to run the our society.
On the other hand to run our society on bio diesel produced from algae only a fraction of that much land would be required at a much less cost to our society.
Even nuclear fueled power plants is a better more reasonable choice than hydrogen.
"You have so many misconceptions about hydrogen. I'm really beginning to get tired of posting the corrections."
Well here's an Expert who disagrees with your expert.
VI. Hydrogen electrolyzed from water
The first way to look at a potential transportation fuel is to examine the overall energy efficiency for its production. Ultimately we want to know how much energy you get back for each unit of energy you put into developing the fuel - or the Energy Return on Investment (EROI). The higher the EROI, the better.
When discussing hydrogen as a fuel, people usually take a very simplified approach. When used in a fuel cell, the only by-product of using hydrogen as a fuel is water. However, that completely ignores the issue of where the hydrogen came from in the first place. It is tempting to think that this hydrogen would be produced by electrolyzing water using renewable energy sources, such as wind. To see how realistic this approach is, it is important to analyze the overall energy balance, and henceforth the amount of energy that would need to be produced for the fuel to be used on a wide scale.
A common dream from the environmentalist community is having a solar panel on the roof of a home to electrolyze water, producing hydrogen for a fuel cell vehicle. It's a nice dream, but not particularly realistic. As a real world example, consider Honda's facility in California that requires an 8 kW solar array to produce enough hydrogen to drive one small hydrogen vehicle roughly 7,500 miles per year8, 9, 10. Such an array could power several homes in California, but is only enough for powering one small car half the normal driving range in the US. For an average family with two vehicles that drive an average distance of 15,000 miles per year, an array of 32 kW would be needed - considerably more with larger vehicles. A 32 kW array would cost on the order of $160,000, and could not be installed just on the rooftop of a single home - it would likely require the south-facing rooftops of at least 4-8 houses to power the vehicles from one home (and that's if you live in sunny California - in less sunny regions you'd need considerably more). The inefficiency of using electricity to produce and use hydrogen means it makes far more sense to first use any newly installed solar or wind power as direct electricity consumption (in houses, businesses, etc.), rather than for hydrogen vehicles. A home in California could meet all of its electric needs with perhaps a 2-4 kW array, depending on the household efficiency. Yet to power their vehicles it would require a 32 kW array or more. With so few people installing the much smaller arrays needed to meet their electrical needs, how likely is it that many would install (or be able to afford to install) a much larger array for their vehicles?
Why does it require so large an array? Look at the efficiency. Electrolysis systems are around 70% efficient (smaller scale systems are less efficient, large scale industrial ones are higher - 70% is a rough average). That means that for each unit of energy you put in, the amount of recoverable energy in the hydrogen produced is equal to 0.7 units. The hydrogen then needs to be compressed to high pressures for storage in fuel tanks (due to the low energy density, hydrogen has to be stored at high pressures so that vehicles can have a reasonable range). Compressing the hydrogen is roughly 85% efficient, liquefaction considerably lower. I will ignore the cost of transporting hydrogen, the efficiency of which is far lower than transporting biodiesel. Since it is highly unlikely that clean solar or wind power would be used for electrolyzing water to make hydrogen (see the above paragraph), I will assume that it would use coal or natural gas derived electricity (this could also come from burning biomass). Most such power plants operate with efficiencies below 40%, but I will use that very favorable figure.
So, the hydrogen fuel can be produced with an overall efficiency of 23.8% - or an EROI of 0.238. Current generation fuel cells are 40-60% efficient. Assuming a very favorable 60% efficiency, that reduces the overall energy return down to 14.28%. That means that for each unit of energy in the form of fuel burned to make electricity, only 14.28% of it is usable for powering the electric motor in a fuel cell vehicle. Steam reformation of natural gas is a far more likely scenario for hydrogen production, as it can be done with roughly a 66% efficiency. Including compression (85%) and use in a fuel cell (a very favorable 60%, with 45% being more likely), the overall efficiency is then 33.6% (or a fossil energy balance of 0.336). The problem is natural gas is not a renewable resource, and the US could not meet the demand of a nationwide hydrogen economy fed off natural gas. We would simply be replacing foreign oil dependence with foreign natural gas dependence. With natural gas being much more expensive (and inefficient) to transport over long distances, this isn't a desirable scenario.
From: http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
But you keep beliving in the dream.
Nuclear requires an army of well-educated specialists to operate the facilities, to check for leaks, to monitor waste, to draft legislation and standards, etc. This in turn requires entire departments of universities to devote all their energy and attention to educating such people, to do the necessary research, etc. Such universities will in turn support the nuclear alternative simply to obtain further educational funding. All this creates a world that depends entirely on politicians supporting the choice for nuclear. Nuclear plants cannot be built a little bit, they require a long-term decision to commit huge amounts of resources and long-term funding, staffing, supervision and policing of everything associated with it, including risks of terrorism, proliferation of nuclear technology, cleaning things up, etc. As a result, nuclear power goes hand in hand with centralisation, favoratism, corruption and making political deals, producing a society that nobody wants, but that is purely the result of the (wrong) choice for nuclear.
Even if we (quite rightly) abolished nuclear plants today, we'd be looking after decommisioning plants, storing waste and terrorists seeking to get their hands on radi-active material for decades, which is a cost that is typically and conveniently left out of the picture by those supporting the nuclear alternative.
By contrast, people can hook up their hot-water-systems to solar power in their backyards or put up a wind turbine themselves with little need for specialist training and with little risk to society at large. Solar power alone could well cater for the energy needs of the entire world. But if you add wind, hydro-power and further technologies to the mix, the picture looks even brighter and better, pricesely because this mix can well cater for the ups and downs of each of the different technologies. But once you say yes to nuclear power, the light goes out everywhere else.
Different sources of energy compete for marketshare, but they are also complementary, in that the noncontinuous character of wind and solar power can be mitigated by including stored power in the mix of sources that are available, specifically hydrogen. Fossil fuel is underpriced right now, because the impact on the environment and the cost of policing supply aren't sufficiently included in the price. I remain convinced that nuclear power will be prohibitively expensive once risk factors are better taken into account (accidents, waste management, terrorism, etc).
Dan: "For an average family with two vehicles that drive an average distance of 15,000 miles per year, an array of 32 kW would be needed - considerably more with larger vehicles. A 32 kW array would cost on the order of $160,000, and could not be installed just on the rooftop of a single home - it would likely require the south-facing rooftops of at least 4-8 houses to power.."
Perhaps that is the real cost, and the conclusion thus is that such a family should NOT be driving two inefficient vehicles over such large distances. If they cannot afford this, then why don't they move closer to work and shops, rather than to keep polluting the environment and forcing others to pay for that through government subsidies and protection. Note also that the land needed for concentrated thermal solar power is much less than for the solar panels one would typically put on top of buildings. Nevertheless, such panels could well power the cars of most people, since 70% of Americans drive less than 33 miles per day. They can refuel their car at work, using facilities at work that are powered by the solar panels on top of their office, and when they return home, they can plug their cars in at home, to top up enough for to drive back to work the next day.
"Fossil fuel is underpriced right now, because the impact on the environment and the cost of policing supply aren't sufficiently included in the price. I remain convinced that nuclear power will be prohibitively expensive once risk factors are better taken into account (accidents, waste management, terrorism, etc). "
Sam I am sure that those risk factors and costs that you are so concerned about will never be taken into account. Those risk factors and costs are what you use to declare petroleum and nuclear to be "BAD" but in reality our society wants and needs energy, in the case of nuclear it is clean and safe in the case of petroleum it is still abundant and relatively cheap.
"such a family should NOT be driving two inefficient vehicles over such large distances."
Sam we can spar using these scenarios all day long but some time you have to face reality that this is how people are, this is what they do and how they live and most people are not willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for your ideals of how the planet should be saved.
You are still not saying much of use in the discussion - for or against the feasibility of a Hydrogen Economy - other than reinforcing that you seem stuck in perspective... Which is the point I had been making...
You sum up your perspective pretty well in saying: "...this is how people are, this is what they do and how they live and most people are not willing to sacrifice their lifestyle for your ideals of how the planet should be saved."
The same or similar could have been said at earlier times in human history:
"Look, Og, who needs these sharp stones attached to the end of long sticks... we're doing perfectly well being scavengers... Do you know how many of our tribe will get killed by confronting a Live beast!!! is it worth it??? And how do you know the sharp stone thingy won't come off of the stick thingy??? Who will want to rely on that??? The Chief scavengers think your idea is just bunk..."
or ... skip ahead to more recent times and over any number of similar examples:
"Look, Orville, if man were intended to fly... he'd have wings... Who's going to want to get up at 5:00 am just to beat rush hour traffic to get to the air flying thingy place two hours ahead of time to get their luggage checked, just to sit on a contraption that will shake their fillings out of their teeth and their teeth out of their heads and make them hear the ocean's roar for a day afterward just to get to some place they could get to anyway, by land or sea. Who Really NEEDS to get someplace THAT quickly to put up with all that?!?!? No.. Stick to Kites and Bikes Orville ... Get your head out of the sky..."
No... The discussion is important... even discussing the roles industry and society play...but be real... The system will work it out, right?... If it's not squashed... There are real obstacles and considerations, but speak directly to those without resorting to pulling strings to swirl the mists of a "crystal" ball to foretell the human behavior...
Deal with the issues at face value...
"
Sam it doesn't matter what "you" are convinced of. BTW aren't you and others putting those issues on the table?
And guess what those issues that you feel that are or should be taken into account are not held to the same level of importance with most of society.
Exactly Lovins point: "Most of the foolish stuff we've got that has gotten us into this mess was bought because we leveraged private-sector money into stupid places it wouldn't have gone otherwise by subsidizing them more than other stuff. Energy policy is not based on rationality. It's based on lobbying and campaign contributions, basically corrupt practices."
Loan guarantees have the same effect as a subsidy in that respect, and nuclear can't survive without them. Nuclear is pushed by industry lobbyists and politicians, who want pork projects in their states. Do away with the subsidies and loan guarantees for all energy sectors - then we'll see who can survive in a truly free market.
I posted the sources and direct quotes.
Bruce: "Proof is in the pudding and I will say it again the plant my Father worked at in Detroit Michigan has been running off Hydrogen Produced on site since 1960 and no one has gotten blown up or killed from it."
Anecdotal evidence, and thanks for it.
Dan: "But you keep beliving in the dream."
Thanks. I will. It's much better than the nuclear nightmare you keep pushing.
Bruce: "Steve keep fighting the good fight because its worth fighting."
Thanks. I will.
Yet you posted: "The best idea I have heard from the algae to biofuel industry is to locate the growing and harvesting near power generation plants, the flue gasses from the power plants are pumped through the algae and the C02 in the flue gasses feeds the algae reducing the power plants carbon output."
You do understand that those power plants are coal burning power plants. If coal is going to be used, this is an ideal way to do it - much better than "carbon sequestration", because you nearly double the energy output from a unit of coal while cutting carbon emissions in half. The carbon is used as nutrition for the algae (photosynthesis - solar energy, the other), which can be used as a biofuel. And another product of this process is - hydrogen.
Still, you have the substantial problem of coal mining, and that's a catastrophe in itself! Better to use renewables. I'll have to check your numbers above. They seem way off compared to other things I've read.
"Most of the foolish stuff we've got that has gotten us into this mess"
What mess is he talking about?
"then we'll see who can survive in a truly free market."
Come on Steve, you can't really believe that the alternatives would be able even to begin to compete in the market place without the credits and subsidies.
"You do understand that those power plants are coal burning power plants."
Oh no Steve I'm taking my tact from you and Sam, I'm talking about the future when all of our power plants are fueled by bio-fuel made from algae and every little hut in every African village has their own bio-fuel production plant and generator providing them all the energy they need. ;-)
"Still, you have the substantial problem of coal mining, and that's a catastrophe in itself!"
But we have so much of it, 300 years supply I hear, and it's so cheap' we could make a lot of hydrogen out of all that coal. ;-) and I hear there a company back east building a coal gasification plant that will be able to produce 300'000 gallons of liquid fuel yearly that at today's fuel costs will be able to compete in the market place.
Why not? I know nuclear won't survive without subsidies. Why pay oil companies to find oil, the Pentagon to protect it, and give tax breaks to businesses to buy Hummers to waste it? Coal is an environmental disaster. Who cleans up after coal companies? Taxpayers? That's a subsidy. Get rid of all the subsidies and "externalities". Then, we'll see who's competitive.
http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Cost2001.PDF
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/4526
http://www.parc.xerox.com/research/projects/cleantech/docs/PARC-SolFocus.solar_whitepaper.pdf
I know you're joking here, Dan, but why would you add a step?
Dan: "But we have so much of it, 300 years supply I hear, and it's so cheap'...."
I appreciate your sense of humor, but it's not cheap if you happen to be one of the folks, whose land, life and kids are affected by the procurement of all that coal.
Dan: "...coal gasification...."
More CO2 emissions than just burning it. No thanks.
Lovins: "...the wind potential of the Dakotas alone could make 50 million tonnes of hydrogen per year --enough, at State of the Art efficiency, to fuel every highway vehicle in the United States. Dakotas windpower is only a fraction of the national potential: adding Texas, Kansas, and Montana augments the Dakotas' by 1.5-fold."
"Winning the Oil Endgame", p.240.
And as you have said elsewhere
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977115548
"...solar power can well provide enough energy for both our current electricity needs and can supply the additional energy needs to run our cars as well."
The amount of renewable energy potential is staggering, and the cost of the equipment needed to procure it is steadily coming down. So, even if Dan's "expert's" claim above (That means that for each unit of energy in the form of fuel burned to make electricity, only 14.28% of it is usable for powering the electric motor in a fuel cell vehicle.), and I am not conceding that it is, then efficiency is a mute point, because there's so much energy. (Even so, I'd like to see other fuels analyzed for efficiency using the same method as Dan's expert, because energy loss is implicit in any conversion process). Also, I gave Lovins' efficiency numbers above, which are very different from the expert Dan quotes.
I'm not sure about that, but it is an unneeded, expensive distraction.
"Why not?"
Because oil is still relatively abundant and cheap when compared to all of the alternatives except hydro.
Only now are solar panels beginning to become affordable and then only due to the subsidies, including netmetering.
Your wrong about nuclear though, new construction cost is now comparable to most any other type of power production plant and the cost of producing that power is more reasonable than most others including all costs of decommissioning and expended fuel containment which BTW breeder reactors can reduce even further the costs of expended fuel containment by utilizing the expended fuel of older reactors leaving expended fuel with much less radioactive life.
"Why pay oil companies to find oil,"
Because it is a vital part of our society and crucial to our economy.
"Coal is an environmental disaster. Who cleans up after coal companies? Taxpayers?"
Taxpayers? Are you asking Steve?
The U.S. has had regulations on the books since President Jimmy Carter signed them into law in 1977 requiring that the companies mining the coal cleanup after themselves.
"but it's not cheap if you happen to be one of the folks, whose land, life and kids are affected by the procurement of all that coal."
You know when you talk about the "total costs" the only thing you're doing is trying to amplify the negatives of what you are against and minimize the benefits of the same?
But you can't minimize the benefits of coal, it is coal that has made the world what it is today, everything good in our society can find its beginning in coal because cheap energy was/is so important to our society, and its advancement.
The benefits of coal to our society both past and present is immeasurable.
Now back to the "total cost", you know what anyone can use that argument. It's not reasonable to do so but anyone can.
We all like hybrids but a couple of years ago I came across this site that rated cars for their environmental friendliness, and these folks took into account the "total cost" and the
Toyota hybrid came in about 12th on their list, because of the batteries and the mining practices related to the metals used in the batteries and the disposal of the lead in the batteries once they had reach their useful limits. The winner! Chevrolet had a little three cylinder car that got about the same gas mileage as the Toyota but since it had no bank of batteries they picked it, taking into account the "total cost".
"More CO2 emissions than just burning it. No thanks."
Sorry Steve it's happening, thanks of no thanks.
Again you two and many others are looking at the future NOT at the present. Today alternatives can not provide us with the energy we need.
Hydrogen is twenty years away and even further before it becomes affordable.
What do we do in the meantime?
Even if I were to agree with you concerning hydrogen and it's viability what do we do about now?
$81/barrel this morning. Of course, this doesn't include the "hidden costs" or "externalities." Of course, those aren't included in the subsidized price, so you have the illusion that oil is cheap.
Dan: "Only now are solar panels beginning to become affordable..."
And they will continue to do so. I just read a forcast this morning about a residential solar system will cost $5K by 2015, eliminating utility bills completely.
Dan: "...and then only due to the subsidies, including netmetering."
Subsidies to the solar industry are minimal compared to fossils and nuclear. And, of course, net metering is not a subsidy. That is just being credited for energy your system produces, that you don't use - but the utility does.
Dan: "Your wrong about nuclear though...."
Thanks for your opinion, but I obviously don't share it.
Dan: "Because it is a vital part of our society and crucial to our economy."
At what point do you figure out that the cost of finding oil, protecting it, and wasting it far outweighs the cost of changing the energy foundation of our economy? How many wind turbines or solar panels or fuel cells or algae farms could have been built with the $$$$$$$$$$ we've squandered in Iraq?
Dan: "The U.S. has had regulations on the books since President Jimmy Carter signed them into law in 1977 requiring that the companies mining the coal cleanup after themselves."
ROFLMAO! Know anyone enforcing those laws these days?
Here - watch mountain top removal for yourself. See any clean up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziuFW-7h1LM
Chapter 2 here:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/media_players/chapter2-3.html
Not to mention changing the rules:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6462-2004Aug16.html
You're desperate. Seriously, you're going to compare coal to hydrogen?
Dan: "Now back to the "total cost", you know what anyone can use that argument."
Go tell it to these people in West Virginia.
Dan: "Toyota hybrid came in about 12th on their list, because of the batteries and the mining practices related to the metals used in the batteries...."
You can't seriously compare mining for metals to produce Li ion batteries to mining coal. Besides, much of the battery materials are recycled.
"Is there a recycling plan in place for nickel-metal hydride batteries?"
Toyota has a comprehensive battery recycling program in place and has been recycling nickel-metal hydride batteries since the RAV4 Electric Vehicle was introduced in 1998. Every part of the battery, from the precious metals to the plastic, plates, steel case and the wiring, is recycled. To ensure that batteries come back to Toyota, each battery has a phone number on it to call for recycling information and dealers are paid a $200 "bounty" for each battery."
http://www.toyota.com/about/environment/technology/2004/hybrid.html
Dan: "...are looking at the future NOT at the present."
2025 to 2050 are Lovins target dates for getting off oil. Much is happening in the present to prepare for the future. It's called having a long-term strategy. All you seem to be able to do is piss on anything that's not already fully in place. BTW, have you seen the new BMW ad?
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/09/20/video-tv-ad-for-hydrogen-7-bmw/
"You can't seriously compare mining for metals to produce Li ion batteries to mining coal."
Wait a minute Steve you mean it's O.K. for you to use the total cost argument but these people who rated the Toyota in 12th place can't?
Why can you but they can't?
"You're desperate."
Steve I'm not desperate, I've posted more valid information from more sources backing up my position than either of you two.
"And they will continue to do so. I just read a forcast this morning about a residential solar system will cost $5K by 2015, eliminating utility bills completely."
It had better be self contained because between now and then the utility companies are going to devise ways to reduce the number of hook ups of solar systems from private resident's
"Thanks for your opinion, but I obviously don't share it."
Yah but it's facts that are important not opinions.
"At what point do you figure out that the cost of finding oil, protecting it, and wasting it far outweighs the cost of changing the energy foundation of our economy?"
Actually I don't, the society as a whole will make that decision.
"Here - watch mountain top removal for yourself. See any clean up?"
Here see for yourself:
http://www.mii.org/reclcoal.html
http://www.osmre.gov/
Since the passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act:
About 29.5 billion tons of coal have been mined under SMCRA regulation.
The coal industry has reclaimed more than 2 million acres of mined lands.
Almost 240,000 acres of high-priority Abandoned Mine Lands have beenreclaimed.
The Abandoned Mine Land Program has eliminated safety and environmental hazards on 314,108 acres, including all three coal priority categories and non-coal problems in 27 States and on the lands of three Indian Tribes.
Since 1977, OSM has addressed 5,099 Abandoned Mine Land emergencies, while the States and Tribes have dealt with 2,764.
Another advantage of Li-ion batteries over Ni-Cd batteries is that Li-ion do not have the memory effect that makes that other batteries decrease in capacity when they are recharged before they are empty. Li-ion batteries do not have to be fully discharged, before they can be recharged, so one can top them up several times a day, e.g. at home or at the office. Nevertheless, Li-ion batteries will deteriorate over time, Tesla estimates that the battery pack needs to be replaced after about 100,000 miles. And that's precisely where hydrogen fuel cells can be more competetive.
You're delusional. Go back and review.
Dan: "Wait a minute Steve you mean it's O.K. for you to use the total cost argument but these people who rated the Toyota in 12th place can't?"
I repeat: You can't seriously compare mining for metals to produce Li ion batteries to mining coal.
I think you also know that I have been promoting hydrogen and fuel cells. Hybrids may be an interim step, but they're not my first choice. That said, I guess you would try to claim that mining metals for Li ion batteries is comparable to coal mining. At least you're consistent.
Dan: "Yah but it's facts that are important not opinions."
So you should stop denying the facts.
Dan: "Here see for yourself:"
Pretty good industry PR piece and also one from the reclamation and enforcement government office. Looks good on the surface. But....
Bush Administration Would Ease Legal Limits on Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining
WASHINGTON, DC, August 22, 2007 (ENS) - The federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, OSM, is proposing to exempt coal mining wastes from a 1983 regulation known as the Stream Buffer Zone Rule that prohibits coal mining activities from disturbing areas within 100 feet of streams.
Regardless of the rule, the agency has allowed thousands of miles of headwaters and perennial streams in Appalachia to be permanently buried by coal companies under millions of tons of waste generated by mountaintop removal coal mining.
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08-22-091.asp
Bush Administration Set to Ease Legal Limits on Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining
Washington, DC - Continuing a dangerous and irresponsible trend, the federal Office of Surface Mining (OSM) this week will announce plans to try again to make stream annihilation legal by exempting coal mining wastes from a 1983 regulation.
For years, the agency has ignored the law and allowed thousands of miles of headwater and perennial streams in Appalachia to be permanently buried by coal companies under millions of tons of waste generated by mountaintop removal coal mining. Known as the "stream buffer zone rule," this decades-old regulation has prohibited surface coal-mining activities from disturbing areas within 100 feet of streams. A copy of the proposed changes to the buffer zone rule is available.
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/article/22198
Mountaintop Removal
The SMCRA requires that companies seeking to acquire new mining sites make an effort to 'reclaim' the area afterward, in part through the preservation or replacement of topsoil, preferably making an approximation at the mountain's original contour. However, mining companies can be exempted from compliance if they can show that there will be more industrial or commercial development potential if the area is left flattened. Supplementing this convenient loophole, Kentucky and West Virginia regulators are frequently lax in the issuance of permits for mountaintop removal operations to the extent that companies do not even have to guarantee a suitable site will be left for future development.
http://www.ohvec.org/links/news/archive/2004/fair_use/05.html
"You're delusional. Go back and review."
Reality hurts huh.
I repeat: Repeat it as many times as you want.
I made no comparisons what so ever I was just pointing out your hypocrisy, and Toyota isn't even using Li-Ion batteries yet .
http://news.windingroad.com/etc/toyota-delays-next-prius-wont-introduce-lithium-ion-cells-until-2011/
"Bush Administration Would Ease Legal Limits on Mountaintop Removal Coal Mining"
Do a bit more research and you find a lot of states have their own regulations concerning mine reclamation.
Well this has been fun Steve, I've successfully challenged your assumptions at every turn.
But you keep believing what the liberal environmentalists tell you to and we'll see where out society turn for power.
This may need to be rephrased, most Lithium-ion batteries still contain some Lithium and have a metal casing. There's much publicity around Lithium-ion polymer batteries. Traditional Lithium-ion batteries have metal casing, but the Lithium-ion polymer cells have a flexible, foil-type (polymer laminate) case and can therefore be smaller and thinner. Also, polymer electrolytes do not ignite as easily, so it makes sense to use polymer as separator between anode and cathode, while some Li-polymer batteries even use a polymer cathode (Moltech is developing a battery with a plastic conducting carbon-sulfur cathode). Lithium-ion polymer batteries can use Li or carbon-Li intercalation compound as anode. There are many developments in this area, with new materials beinmg tested all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_polymer_battery
Here's a source that says: "The lithium ion battery does not employ any lithium metal. It is not governed by aircraft transportation rules relating to carrying lithium batteries in passenger airplanes." at:
http://www.byd.com/doce/products/li.asp
I think what they refer to here is the metal casing that Lithium-ion polymer batteries don't have, so they are harder to spot using metal detectors.
Here's a link to an electric bike that has a Lithium-ion polymer battery:
http://schwinnbike.com/products/intbikes_detail.php?id=895
This isn't about socialism, Dan. It's about what is most efficient. Currently, government taxes people who work and are successful, handing over much of that money to people who don't work and are unsuccessful, while much money also disappears in the waste that comes with bureaucracy, monopolies and cartels.
What I propose to tax things that are harmful, such as greenhouse gas emissions. Were the proposed taxes on greenhouse gas emissions used to support the poor (with the idea that they needed help to pay the higher prices of fuel and meat), then this would simply make the poor continue with their current lifestyle, i.e. exactly the opposite of what I aim to achieve. The proceeds should go to better alternatives, in order to achieve the quickest change, e.g. in the light of the urgency to act on global warming. That will make such alternatives doubly more attractive by comparison, so even the rich (who could afford rising costs of fuel and meat) will take more notice and will consider making changes to their lifestyle as well.
In conclusion, my proposal is neither left nor right, and it will work for both rich and poor. The hydrogen economy looks much more efficient than the current one.
"It's about what is most efficient."
Then why such a high level of devotion to hydrogen? Such an inefficient fuel.
"The hydrogen economy looks much more efficient than the current one."
You've seen what I've proposed and the future will provide fuel sources much more efficient than hydrogen and our society more likely will utilize them rather than such an inefficient fuel as hydrogen.
"What I propose"
Yes Sam I already know what you propose and I reply again, If you want to reduce GHGs you need to allow people to become more prosperous and you can't do that by slowing down the economy with more taxes.
" my proposal is neither left nor right"
You're telling me you're not a liberal? All the tell tail signs say you are.
"will work for both rich and poor."
well you probably thought that sounded good, but how is that poverty level family supposed to put food on the table and buy gas for their car after your carbon taxes go into effect? And how is that elderly couple supposed to pay to heat their home and put food on the table after your carbon taxes go into effect?
Sam you can't see the whole picture because you are blinded to anything but the sky is falling chicken little message of the liberal environmentalists.
It doesn't help the poor it hurts the poor.
That was one of Dr.lightfoot's most important points, that our society is at it's current level of prosperity because of the mass amounts of available energy and that prosperity allows our citizens to live a cleaner lifestyle, and in order to reduce GHGs we need more places in the world to have more energy so their citizens can move to a cleaner lifestyle also.
Go back and read it again. You brought up the battery issue in response to my statements about the "total cost" of fossil fuels. Now you deny you're making comparisons.
Dan: "Do a bit more research and you find a lot of states have their own regulations concerning mine reclamation."
Do a bit more research, and you find that the results are the same: "...the agency has ignored the law and allowed thousands of miles of headwater and perennial streams in Appalachia to be permanently buried by coal companies under millions of tons of waste generated by mountaintop removal coal mining."
Dan: "I've successfully challenged your assumptions at every turn."
ROFLMAO!!! You don't successfully challenge anything. You just change the subject.
Dan: "Reality hurts huh."
I'm sorry for your pain. I'm sure you'll feel better soon. ;)
Dan: "...you keep believing what the liberal environmentalists tell you to and we'll see where out society turn for power."
Ah, now we see your agenda. Here it is again...
Dan: "...the sky is falling chicken little message of the liberal environmentalists....If you want to reduce GHGs you need to allow people to become more prosperous and you can't do that by slowing down the economy with more taxes."
Your arguement is political, and that is a valid arguement. You should stick to that arguement instead of sacrificing your credibility on all the other bs you have posted - like this nonsense:
Dan: "...that our society is at it's current level of prosperity because of the mass amounts of available energy and that prosperity allows our citizens to live a cleaner lifestyle, and in order to reduce GHGs we need more places in the world to have more energy so their citizens can move to a cleaner lifestyle also."
You mean like China surpassing the U.S. in CO2 emissions this year due to burning massive amounts of coal?
http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=11068
There was a segment on Science Channel's program "EcoTech", which showed research on extremely light batteries that have really explosive (not as in explosions) charges over short distances. One burned out the electric motor of a drag motorcycle in a demonstration. I don't know if these were Li-ion batteries, but the goal was to adapt them to cars. Still, I would prefer hydrogen fuel cells.
Dan: "This isn't about socialism...."
Of course, it isn't. Your shift of the tax burden from work/income to socially harmful practices (usually, it's a wash re: total government revenue) is beneficial for all, including capitalism (cf. "Natural Capitalism," Hawken, Lovins & Lovins)
http://www.natcap.org/
Well, the original topic of your article is hydrogen efficiency, and anyone sincerely looking at alternatives to fossils will "get it" that hydrogen is efficient, considering that 1. energy is lost in any conversion process, 2. hydrogen is far superior to other fuels in end-use efficiency, 3. fuel cells enhance hydrogen efficiency through (as you say) absence of the Carnot Limit, and 4. co-generation or tri-generation attributes of fuel cells even recover energy otherwise lost (through heating/cooling), making hydrogen fuel cells more efficient, by far, than today's technologies.
Yes I brought up the fact that a group was being just as ridiculous as you in implementing the total cost argument. And then you blew a cork and started in about batteries. But you seem to think it's O.K. for you to use total cost but they can't!
"You don't successfully challenge anything"
Hydrogen efficiency My several references that highlighted the actual lack of efficiency of hydrogen led to Sam saying "that would be enough"
Your claim that hydrogen is no more hazardous than gas or natural gas my several references high lighted the need for special handling due to the unique nature of Hydrogen
I could keep going but I leave with this.
Many of the things you posted about the wonders of hydrogen and lovins plans I found experts that cast doubt on them.
Steve you have your fingers in your ears as you sing La la La La La because you don't want to hear that your single source Lovins is wrong in his assumptions.
Steve, I just realized that I hadn't responded to your comment yet. Rather than competing technologies, I see batteries and fuel cells in many respects as complementary. Acceleration takes a lot of energy and batteries are well suited for that. They can also be topped up through regenerative breaking. But to drive longer distances, hydrogen is more economic, since it wouldn't be helpful to take more batteries on board given their weight.
Thus, I expect lithium-ion batteries and fuel cells to be used jointly in cars and I expect rapid improvement for both technologies in terms of weight, price and performance.
Here's some encouraging news in that respect:
Exxon Mobil Corp. has announced super-thin plastic sheeting to improve the power, safety and reliability of lithium-ion batteries in cars. Also, Exxon Mobil considers the film a breakthrough because it allows battery makers to build smaller and cheaper battery systems.
Separator films are membranes that keep apart the battery's positive and negative fields, which are wrapped in a jelly-roll configuration. Such film squeezes multiple layers of plastic into a single white sheet the width of a human hair. The added layers enable the batteries to run at higher temperatures — and produce more power — while still protecting them from overheating. It also incorporates features that cause it to shut down if there is a short circuit in the battery.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/biz/5334375.html
PS: The article also gives an estimate for the cost of components. I take it this includes both electric motor and battery. It says that hybrids cost roughly $3,000 more than their gas-powered counterparts.
The range problem, high torque demands, and fuel infrastructure. A system which
is comprised of ion exchange, DC power storage, hydrolosys, deionization, steam pressure (by hydrogen flame), and hydraulic pressure (by pump). This system would
supply the motive force for a tri-motive rotary motor at each wheel (which I have a design for). The motor would use hydraulic pressure for high torque-low RPM, steam for
mid torque-mid RPM, and AC linear induction for low torque-high RPM. This hybrid design
would be well suited to all driving conditions. A series of hydraulic accumulators would
be used to achieve regenerative braking by using the rotary motor as a hydraulic pump
during braking and storing the pressure which would then be released as the driver
starts moving again, great for stop an go traffic. This would work in tandem with the
linear induction which would provide electrodynamic braking for power recharging. The
only substance that the vehicle would require to have refilled is water for hydrogen and
oxygen generation, the steam would be recirculated. I believe a range in excess of 700
miles, between fillups, could be achieved.