Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Where Are the Hydrogen Mines?
Tech Central Station ^ | 12/10/2003 | Ronald Bailey

Posted on 12/10/2003 10:39:39 PM PST by farmfriend

Where Are the Hydrogen Mines?

By Ronald Bailey

MILAN, Italy, Dec. 10 -- "Of course climate change is an environmental issue, but it is fundamentally one of economics and development," declared Elliot Diringer, director of International Strategies at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change at a press conference on Tuesday where he unveiled the Pew Center's new Beyond Kyoto report. Pew Center president Eileen Claussen added that nothing less than a "technological revolution" is needed to stop global warming.

U.S. Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky, who is heading up the US delegation to the COP9 meeting here in Milan, appeared to agree with the Pew Center about the need for a technological revolution. She noted in her first COP9 press conference on Wednesday that meeting the challenge of climate change "requires the development and deployment of transformational technologies." Such transformational technologies would produce no net emissions of greenhouse gases said Dobriansky.

The technological revolution being proposed by Pew and others worried about global warming goes by the name of the "hydrogen economy." Hydrogen is the "forever fuel" according to promoters. Why hydrogen? Because it burns cleanly producing only energy and water. Hydrogen can be used in fuel cells to produce electricity.

Even President George W. Bush has jumped on the hydrogen economy bandwagon. Earlier this year, President Bush announced the "hydrogen fuel initiative" and FreedomCar initiative on which the federal government will spend $1.7 billion over five years on research aimed at developing hydrogen fuel cell technologies. "If we develop hydrogen power to its full potential, we can reduce our demand for oil by over 11 million barrels per day by the year 2040," said the President when he announced the programs. To get some idea of the magnitude of what he is proposing, the United States burns about 20 million barrels of oil per day now.

At the COP9, Dobriansky cited the US's creation of and commitment to the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE). One of the chief goals of the IPHE is by 2020, "the production of hydrogen at a cost that makes it the fuel of choice for transportation needs, enabling consumers in participating countries to purchase a competitively priced hydrogen-powered vehicle and be able to refuel it near their homes and places of work, while also meeting other energy needs."

So are cars running on hydrogen fuel cells the way to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2020? "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," according to a study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Laboratory for Energy and the Environment last March. Though the MIT study did say that perhaps hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would be viable in the next 30 to 50 years.

Even if hydrogen can be produced without releasing greenhouse gases, it may not be as environmentally benign as advertised by activists. A study by Caltech scientists published this past June in Science found that hydrogen leaking out of cars, pipelines and production plants could damage the ozone layer which shields the planet from cancer-causing ultraviolet sunlight.

But can we get from today's fossil fueled world to the environmental utopia of the hydrogen economy?

Hydrogen Mines?

Consider how far away the world is from that goal. According to the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), fossil fuels -- coal, oil, and natural gas -- supply 80 percent of the world's energy now. Nuclear supplies another 7 percent. Of the remainder, 11 percent of the world's energy is derived from "biomass" and 2 percent comes from other "renewables." Biomass is a nice word for burning wood, straw, and dung and, while such sources are "renewable," people in poor countries struggle and often fail to "renew" their depleted forests. Meanwhile, less than one half of one percent of the world's energy needs are met by solar, tidal and wind sources, according to UNEP.

Fossil fuels are mined or pumped from wells, but unfortunately, there are no hydrogen mines. This means that hydrogen must be somehow extracted from water or hydrocarbons like natural gas. Since extracting hydrogen from hydrocarbons still emits the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, this means that one still has to figure out what to do with the leftover carbon dioxide. Producing hydrogen by separating two hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atom in molecules of water avoids the production of carbon. But that only works if the electricity is produced using non-carbon fuels. That means that for environmental activists the only canonically acceptable way to produce hydrogen is by using renewable sources of energy like photovoltaic cells and windpower. As previously noted, those sources produce about one half of one percent of the world's power today and that's primary production for direct use, not for producing another form of energy in which losses inevitably occur. Using electricity to make hydrogen produces no net gain in energy; in fact, energy is lost. Hydrogen is not so much a source of energy as it is an energy carrier. In this sense hydrogen is just a kind of electric storage battery.

But can solar power and wind power supply the energy needed to make hydrogen fuel? Not likely says, Jesse Ausubel, director of the Human Environment program at Rockefeller University. Ausubel does see one way to the carbon-free hydrogen economy -- nuclear power. Ausubel points out that power plants must be built to meet peak energy demand, which means that they stand wastefully and expensively idle during the night.

"Nuclear energy's special potential is as an abundant source of electricity for electrolysis and high-temperature heat for water splitting while the cities sleep," writes Ausubel. "Nuclear plants could nightly make hydrogen on the scale needed to meet the demand of billions of consumers. Windmills and other solar technologies cannot power modern people by the billions. Reactors that produce hydrogen could be situated far from population concentrations and pipe their main product to consumers." In other words, nuclear power plants will become the "hydrogen mines" of the future.

But the way forward to the carbon-free nuclear/hydrogen future is hampered by the Kyoto Protocol, which excludes nuclear power as a "clean" source of energy despite the fact that it produces no greenhouse gases.

Ausubel predicts, "Hydrogen will gradually gain its worldwide following, beginning soon, in the dawning of the nuclear millennium." If environmentalists are serious about getting to the hydrogen economy sooner rather than later, they drop their objections to nuclear power. If they do, then Ausubel's prediction may well come true.

Ronald Bailey, Reason magazine's science correspondent, is the editor of Global Warming and Other Eco Myths (Prima Publishing) and Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet(McGraw-Hill). He is covering the COP9 conference in Milan for TCS.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; energy; environment; fuelcell; government; hydrogen; milan; pauladobriansky; powell
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

1 posted on 12/10/2003 10:39:40 PM PST by farmfriend
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; Ace2U; Alamo-Girl; Alas; alfons; amom; AndreaZingg; Anonymous2; ApesForEvolution; ...
Rights, farms, environment ping.

Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

2 posted on 12/10/2003 10:40:01 PM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
"Got a light?"
3 posted on 12/10/2003 10:52:58 PM PST by jwh_Denver (Instant gratification still ain't fast enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Hydrogen as a portable carrier for the energy produced by nukes makes sense, but the idea of hygrogen as fuel for the average motorist is a far-away Utopia. Exotic fuels make more sense for local fleets, however, because those vehicles are generally fueled at a central location, and can hire mechanics with the expertise necessary to maintain them.

4 posted on 12/10/2003 11:00:17 PM PST by Jeff Chandler (Chilling Effect-1, Global Warming-0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
The hydrogen that all of those sprinkled by the hydrogen fairy gush about will be mined, the "mines" are called oil wells. Hydrogen will be cracked from the hydrocarbons because it takes 4 or 5 times less energy than by electrolysis...
5 posted on 12/10/2003 11:04:32 PM PST by Axenolith (<tag>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jwh_Denver
If you think the Pinto was a death trap when the fuel tank failed in an accident, consider what happens when a hydrogen tank is breached.

Remember the Hindenberg?
6 posted on 12/10/2003 11:13:27 PM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon liberty, it is essential to examine principles - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Axenolith
I think it first needs to be proven carbon dioxide is a problem before spending trillions trying to avoid releasing it.
7 posted on 12/10/2003 11:14:37 PM PST by DB (©)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
Hydrogen as a portable carrier...

Exactly - it is only a carrier. Extracting hydrogen from water to burn it back to water is like pumping water uphill to let it flow down through a generator.
8 posted on 12/10/2003 11:32:22 PM PST by Russian Sage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
What I want to know is why hasn't biodiesel caught more interest?

I saw a report about a guy that uses used frenchfry oil to run his car - at about twice the mpg of gasoline.

9 posted on 12/10/2003 11:51:52 PM PST by clee1 (Where's the beef???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Darnedest thing about them Hydrogen Mines,....thar isn't a hydrogen miner alive who was fast enough to dig the mine, recover from the explosion from the pick sparking the rock, and then capture all that hydrogen down in the mine....at least from those who live to tell about it!! ;^)
10 posted on 12/10/2003 11:57:15 PM PST by Cvengr (0:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
There aren't many fuels packing much more punch than gasoline. The Hindenburg didn't explode, it burned. The actual material burned.
11 posted on 12/11/2003 12:05:20 AM PST by Jeff Chandler (Chilling Effect-1, Global Warming-0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Russian Sage
pumping water uphill to let it flow down through a generator.

The Salt River Project in Arizona does just that with its series of lakes. At night, when demand is low, the water is pumped into the upper lakes. During the day, when demand is high, it powers the generators.

Nuke plants can't be powered up and down like other plants. If we build enough to achieve regular overcapacity, the excess electricity could be stored by producing hydrogen? (I don't know if this would even be cost-effective).

12 posted on 12/11/2003 12:12:39 AM PST by Jeff Chandler (Chilling Effect-1, Global Warming-0)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: clee1
Biodiesel is heavily pushed by the Grange. I hear about it a lot. You can find National Grange policy on their website.
13 posted on 12/11/2003 12:29:42 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
I'll look into it, thanks.

I'm really interested in this. My next vehicle may very well be a diesel/converted to biodiesel.
14 posted on 12/11/2003 12:31:41 AM PST by clee1 (Where's the beef???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Chandler
They do the same thing at Tam Sauk in SE Missouri.

Using off peak capacity from nuke power plants would make some sense.
15 posted on 12/11/2003 12:51:03 AM PST by DeepDish (Let your keyboard do the walking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
The article sez:   "But can solar power and wind power supply the energy needed to make hydrogen fuel?"

LOL, of course it can, (about the time that hell freezes over!)

--Boot Hill

16 posted on 12/11/2003 12:53:20 AM PST by Boot Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
(about the time that hell freezes over!)

With all this "global warming" no chance of that happening anytime soon.

17 posted on 12/11/2003 12:55:30 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Fossil fuels are mined or pumped from wells, but unfortunately, there are no hydrogen mines. This means that hydrogen must be somehow extracted from water or hydrocarbons like natural gas. Since extracting hydrogen from hydrocarbons still emits the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, this means that one still has to figure out what to do with the leftover carbon dioxide. Producing hydrogen by separating two hydrogen atoms from the oxygen atom in molecules of water avoids the production of carbon. But that only works if the electricity is produced using non-carbon fuels. That means that for environmental activists the only canonically acceptable way to produce hydrogen is by using renewable sources of energy like photovoltaic cells and windpower. As previously noted, those sources produce about one half of one percent of the world's power today and that's primary production for direct use, not for producing another form of energy in which losses inevitably occur. Using electricity to make hydrogen produces no net gain in energy; in fact, energy is lost. Hydrogen is not so much a source of energy as it is an energy carrier. In this sense hydrogen is just a kind of electric storage battery.

Finally, some reality. I've been preaching this point to any enviro-moron that would listen. And then I ask them if they want to drive a car that uses hydrogen cells and thus needs a tank of compressed hydrogen and one with compressed oxygen, and a power source, to combine them for an explosion in the cylinders. That confuses them.

The only solution is a pipeline to Jupiter or the Sun. Yeah, that's feasible.

18 posted on 12/11/2003 1:00:12 AM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DB
We can drastically drop the levels of carbon dioxide if all the enviro-morons and politicians would just shut the < John Kerry expletive deleted > up!
19 posted on 12/11/2003 1:01:50 AM PST by Fledermaus (Fascists, Totalitarians, Baathists, Communists, Socialists, Democrats - what's the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fledermaus
Look, bringing facts into the argument will get you no where! We don't care about the fact, we want to feel good about doing something for the environment.
20 posted on 12/11/2003 1:03:04 AM PST by farmfriend ( Isaiah 55:10,11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson