Efficiencies of Hydrogen

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Dec 13 2006, 07:22 PM) [snapback]361930[/snapback]</div>

My two cents:

Clett nailed the catalyst issue.

Nobody has yet mentioned the storage issue for vehicles, which severely limits the range.

The research organization (Rocky Mountain Institute) appears legitimate, as far as I could tell. At least, based on the sources I checked, they were not notoriously illegitimate.

The intro to the paper has so much material that is so far at odds with the current situation that, absent a detailed reading, I would discount whatever else they have to say. In particular, on Page 6, currently produced hydrogen is likened to $1/gallon gasoline. That seemed a bit over the top to me. If it really were this cheap, even in concept, we'd already be using it. So, without investing the time, I'd have to guess the rest of the analysis is similarly slanted.

Ok, one more, page 8:
"Producing hydrogen is already a large and mature global industry, using at least 5% of U.S. natu-ral
gas output. Globally, about 50 million metric tons of hydrogen is made for industrial use each
year."

I had the impression that the market for hydrogen was quite small, when reckoned against other fuels. But golly, no, this paper says that hydrogen production is a large industry. Let me assume that 5% figure is correct, and do the arithmetic to compare US hydrogen production to US consumption of gasoline. As in, grossly speaking, how much of current US gas consumption could be offset by diverting all current US hydrogen production to transportation?

Nobody ever cares about the details of a calculation but in a nutshell:
Start with US DOE data on US natural gas production, US gasoline consumption
Take a figure off the 'net (no idea whether it's right or not) that the current steam conversion of natural gas to hydrogen is about 40 percent efficient (ie. the energy value of the resulting H2 is about 40 percent of the energy value of the natual gas fed into the process, which I assume includes the cost of heating the water to steam).
Convert the energy in 5% of US natural gas production, times the assumed 40% effiicient factor, to estimate the energy in the hydrogen produced. Then find the gallons of gasoline needed to produce the same amount of energy, making the necessary conversions (cu. ft gas to BTU to Kcal to gallons of gasoline). Compare to current US gasoline production.

I calculate that, assuming the 5% number in the paper is correct, and with no further adjustments for transportation of the fuels, efficiency in use, blah blah blah, that current US hydrogen production from natural gas would be adequate to displace about 2.5% of current US gasoline consumption.

So, going no further, my guess is that the paper has a pretty high baloney content. I mean, the flat-footed description of the current situation is that current US hydrogen production, if fully diverted to transportation, would cover about 2.5% of current US gasoline consumption. And, corresponding, that diverting all US natural gas production to hydrogen (so we'd freeze) would therefore be adequate to displace only half of US gasoline consumption. (This, by the way, totally ignores the strong downward trend in US gas production, but that's a separable issue.) So that, a) the current state of US industry is nowhere near large enough to handle much of US transport fuel demand, and b) the nature of the industry would have to change radically to handle a large slice of that demand (ie. you couldn't use the most prevalent current process to displace a significant portion of US gasoline consumption - we simply do not have the natural gas to spare for it.) Now go back and see how that was characterized in the paper, in the quote above. Do you think I'm going to believe anything else this guy says? Unless my calculation is grossly in error, no. He may be right on some facts, but there's too much spin here for me to take the time to sort out truth from slant.

Regarding hydrogen as an energy carrier for sites where surplus electricity is generated but cannot be distributed, that's an interesting idea. I'd like to see a scholarly analysis of the energy balance there. Anywhere you can put a pipeline you can run an electric line. So I assume we're talking about transportling (presumably) liquid hydrogen, by boat, for use as a fuel source, in these situations. It would be interesting to see a good analysis of the economics and energy balance of that.

On net, I'm still convinced that if you have electicity available, you're vastly better off running PHEVs and BEVs off that, than you are using it to generate hydrogen, then burning the hydrogen. If the facts change, I'll change my mind.

 

And, just in case you hadn't thought of this, hydrogen makes a great drink. I make a Waterini consisting of two parts hydrogen and the rest oxygen. I serve it over the rocks, stirred, not shaken, with a dash of lemon. Curiously refreshing!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Dec 13 2006, 04:22 PM) [snapback]361930[/snapback]</div>

Wow. This one is years old and has been discredited more times that I can count. You can read anything on the internet. Your job is to figure out fact from fiction. Logic from dreams. Here's a dose of reality on this very subject that was published as *recently* as last week.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/1424/4137

Certainly. As long as that edeavor does not hamper adoption of current technologies that are ready to take us away from fossil fuels TODAY. WE can chase H2 FCV until they become viable. But so far, that quest has tossed BEVs out in the cold without so much as a blanket. We have the technology TODAY to be driving gasoline/oil/pollution free. We can do it at 1/10th the cost of a FCV. We can do it with higher performance and at least as much range. We can do it with existing infrastructure. We can (and many of us already do!) produce the fuel with affordable 100% renewable resources.

Great way? In some, limited situations, yes. Globally? Nationally? For transportation? No. We can't use any of our existing gas storage and transportation infrastructure. For the money it would take to build the new infrastructure for H2, we could buy a few hundred million EVs and use V2G to store the power in the very cars we drive.

That can be "contended" all day long, of course. But a quick look at the numbers tells a different story. The dream of H2 is very bright indeeed. The current reality is not. And currently we're pinning all our hopes on that future dream, and sweeping BEVs under the rug.

 

I think darell's hit the nail on the head here. The point is not that we shouldn't do hydrogen at all, but that we are in need of some solution ASAP, and if we could get companies to put in the development money and the advertising money, the BEV could be a solution TODAY, while a FCV is still 5 years (absolute minimum) away. In fact, we could have had BEVs going for like 10 years.

It just really starts to piss you off after a while to see the people with money and power pushing this technology that MIGHT be a good replacement for gasoline in the future, when there's another technology, that is (at least technologically) ready RIGHT NOW to start phasing out gasoline which everyone is just ignoring. That's why many people (especially here) respond so strongly in a negative way when someone proposes that hydrogen might be beneficial.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Dec 14 2006, 10:54 AM) [snapback]362297[/snapback]</div>

So it's a ship large enough to house a big wind farm? They need enough windmills to account for failures, because it would be unfeasible to send maintenance ships; they'd have to wait till they were back in port.

Wonder what fuel they'll use to sail back and forth?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rick Auricchio @ Jan 22 2007, 12:49 PM) [snapback]379139[/snapback]</div>

They might just be able to make it out and back by using all that H2 they've just created.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Fibb222 @ Jan 29 2007, 12:57 PM) [snapback]382414[/snapback]</div>

Yes, Amory Lovins is a respected, if somewhat radical (though most often practical) environmentalist. He's done some great work. And nobody. NOBODY has a clue how and why he came up with the "Myths" article that he did.

 

The government has to protect their share as well.Its a lot easier to tax hydrogen at the pump ,than it would be to tax moonshiners , charging their Teslas for free using solar panels.
Since the the oil companies control Bush ,and Bush controls government, hes directed our future to hydrogen.This was done without true regard for what would actually be the best method.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Stringmike @ Dec 26 2006, 02:48 PM) [snapback]366788[/snapback]</div>

 

There is a very good reason why you see some people/companies pushing hydrogen or other solutions.

What is that reason? It is because the greatest chance of these people/companies making LOTS of money is with hydrogen. NOT because is is better for anyone.

As noted, we have solutions that we can build today with existing technology. We should be using those and not waiting hopefully for a hydrogen to be good enough for us to use.

When and if hydrogen becomes the best solution that they can build right then and there and we can buy it and it is the best economic and environmental choice. Only then do we the consumers need to worry about it.

 

darelldd is absolutely right. BEVs are ready - today. Small businesses - such as AC Propulsion - have created vehicles that have good range (140-180 miles!), performance (faster than a gas vehicle), and cost a fraction of what it costs to operate a gasoline vehicle.

If Toyota were to start producing the eBox "in house", you might see it for $30,000 instead of $50,000. That makes a lot more sense than a $500k fuel-cell vehicle.

It is very possible for an individual to own and operate a BEV! For the vast majority of us, though, it's not possible to own an H2 vehicle. There's nowhere to refuel and they are just too damned expensive.

Hydrogen IS NOT an energy source. Unlike petroleum, natural gas, or coal, we can't just dig it up (or pump it out of the ground), refine it, and use it. H2 must be PRODUCED, which requires energy. Where does this energy come from? It comes either from fossil fuels, nuclear, or renewables.

Well, if we're producing energy anyway, why not send it over some sort of "energy distribution network". Perhaps some sort of "grid", which connects nearly every every home and business to production sites with extremely high efficiency. Users could simply take energy from the "grid", and use it to "fuel" their vehicles, from the convenience of their home or office. We could develop standards to ensure interoperability between devices attached to the "grid". We could add meters so that individuals are billed for what they use. And users could even generate their own energy, sending part of it back into the "grid" when they produce a surplus and taking energy when they need it.

If only we had something like that. We'd be foolish to ignore a system that is so flexible and powerful.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wauwis @ Dec 25 2006, 11:50 PM) [snapback]366626[/snapback]</div>

Uh, nope! Check the numbers and you would see there is not enough nuclear fuel to power all vehicular traffic, and to bring the capacity on line we would have to be building new plants at a ridiculously impossible rate. Nuclear has its uses, but it cannot serve as the major primary source of power for the world in any scenario.

 

"Five Miracles" before Hydrogen happens. Can't we wait 'till just ONE of them happens before this discussion becomes relavent? Read, "The hype about hydrogen". It's just a ponzi scheme that allows GM to waste valuable research dollers that ought best be spent on electrics, IMHO. Ten years ago they said, "we'll be using hydrogen fuel in 10 years". They're still saying it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hill @ Feb 26 2007, 12:31 PM) [snapback]396665[/snapback]</div>

Hi Hill,

You might be right. Not sure if I agree 100%, but we as a nation should put in some performance goal/targets. For example, before we spend one more gold-dollar on the Hydrogen program, we need to see a compact of mid-sized production pasenger car that is better than 45 mpg in traffic out of these guys (the big 2.5). If they want their hydrogen, they gotta give us results from the SUPERCAR program FIRST, before any more money goes into the FUTURECAR program.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bsoft @ Feb 25 2007, 04:23 AM) [snapback]396151[/snapback]</div>

Next you'll be proposing that the vehicle systems would be "fueled" while we sleep using the reserve capacity of this mythical "grid."

Bob Wilson

 

I think that the big automakers, at least in the US, are going to try to go with Hydrogen, if not just to keep their oil company buddies happy. But I also think (and hope) that there are a lot of small/private enterprises springing up to develop a reliable, useful, and economical all electric vehicle (Tesla, CalCars, AC Prop. etc.). Once enough of these enterprises get enough publicity, or enough people see Who Killed The Electric Car, a higher demand for EVs will develop. Sure the oil companies and US government can sue CA and successfully cover up the EV1 while it's still unknown to the average citizen, but as technology creates a longer range EV and people see them out there, it'll be pretty much over for Hydrogen. Even now with the un-plug-inable Prius, drivers can tell that with a bigger/more efficient battery pack and the addition of a basic circuit to plug into the wall, the vehicle would do many times better than it does now.

would you rather drive to the gas(or hydrogen) station and pay at the pump or slap some solar slabs on your roof(if you wanted to, or just pay the extra 0.10 $/KWh to charge), bring down the cost of your electricity bill, and drive your car full charged out of the garage every morning?

I grew up in a house where all our electricity was developed solely by (1980's) Solar Panels and stored in a (26x) Lead-Acid battery pack. If that now ancient technology can power a large household (even in the winter with snow covering the panels), you're damn sure it can drive your car down the road with new technology.

(sorry if i repeated an earlier post, didn't have the patience to read all of it.... :huh: )