The False Promise of Hydrogen: What The President Is Driving At (The Facts!)

CEI - Competitive Enterprise Institute ^ | January 31, 2003 | Paul J. Georgia

[Varmint Al]

The False Promise of Hydrogen: What The President Is Driving At
Georgia Op-Ed in National Review Online
by Paul J. Georgia
January 31, 2003

In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush proposed that the federal government spend $1.2 billion on hydrogen fuel-cell research. "With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free," Bush said. "Join me in this important innovation, to make our air significantly cleaner and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of oil."

Bush obviously feels significant pressure to appear that he's doing something about the environment. At some point it might dawn on him that there's nothing he can say or do that will satisfy the radical environmental lobby and their media lapdogs. Bringing up such issues in high-profile speeches, such as the State of the Union, only provides fodder to his political enemies. Predictably the eco-radicals attacked Bush's plan for not requiring automakers to put affordable hydrogen cars on the market by a certain model year. They also claim that the plan is just a way to avoid forcing the automobile companies to lower fuel-economy standards.

It makes even less sense, however, for President Bush to throw a lot of money at a technology that is decades away from commercial viability. The "hydrogen economy" has been promoted for years by environmental activists and alternative-energy gurus like Amory Lovins. But hydrogen is not a source of energy, something which hydrogen advocates either don't understand or refuse to acknowledge. Since hydrogen does not exist in geological reservoirs it must be extracted from fossil-fuel feedstocks or water. The process of extracting hydrogen uses energy, which means that using hydrogen is less efficient that burning fossil fuels. And if you're worried about global warming you certainly don't want to go that route. As a recent energy-technology review in Science magazine pointed out last November, "Per unit of heat generated, more CO2 is produced by making H2 [hydrogen] from fossil fuel than by burning the fossil fuel directly."

The other option is to extract hydrogen from water using renewable-energy sources that deal fossil fuels entirely out of the equation. But that is a pipedream. Renewable energy itself is not cost effective, and by the time you use the energy to extract hydrogen from water, transport that hydrogen to where car owners can get to it and then recombine it with oxygen to re-extract the energy the cost becomes astronomical.

Honda, for example, is leasing five of its FCX fuel-cell vehicles to the city of Los Angeles. It is clearly a PR ploy since the cost to the company for each car is $1.6 million. Honda has also constructed a bank of solar panels in Torrance, California for the purpose of generating "clean" electricity to produce the hydrogen. But it takes a whole week to generate enough power to produce one tank of hydrogen at a cost of $40,000 per tank. Call me crazy, but that's a long way from affordable transportation.

Renewable energy has its own significant drawbacks. Wind power, the only renewable energy even close to being competitive, requires enormous subsidies to stay afloat. Subsidies for wind power, which include an array of both federal and state tax breaks and credits, along with accelerated depreciation (five years as opposed to 20 years for other electric generating facilities), are so extensive that their value sometimes exceeds the wind farm's revenues from selling electricity.

One of the subsidies, a 1.7-cent-per-kilowatt-hour production tax credit that must be renewed periodically by Congress, throws the industry into a recession every time it lapses. In 1999, for example, the tax credit wasn't available and only 50 megawatts of wind generation were installed. Congress renewed the tax credit and new generations soared to 1700 MW. In December 2001, the credit lapsed once again and wasn't renewed until March 2002. That year, only 410 MW of new capacity were installed. An energy source that is so heavily dependent on taxpayer subsidies does not meet President Bush's stated goal of providing this nation with affordable and reliable energy.

Moreover, wind farms are incredibly land intensive. Three newly proposed wind farms in West Virginia would occupy 30 to 40 square miles but would produce slightly less electricity than a new 265 MW gas-fired combined-cycle generating plant, which would occupy a few acres. Sallie Baliunas at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, estimates, using very conservative assumptions, that producing enough hydrogen with wind power to replace just one-third of the vehicles on the road today would require 210,000 square miles. In reality, that number would likely be much higher. Finally, the history of federal funding of energy-technology research is downright depressing. It is a landscape littered with dozens of multibillion-dollar failures. It is unlikely that this new endeavor will result in anything more than wasted money.

[Servant of the Nine]

As long as it will produce a silent vibrationless source of electricity for my boat, spend on.
After all these years I would like to see some govt. money spent on a boondogle I can get something out of.

It's my turn.

So9

[Willie Green]

Good post, Al.

The junk science alchemists will still insist that they can discover a secret formula to transform lead into gold (or in this case, hydrogen into "fuel"). But when it comes right down to it, their magic elixirs are nothing but snake oil. At best, hydrogen may be used someday as a temporary storage medium for energy originally produced from some other source. But it is NOT an energy source itself, and never will be.

[templar]

I must apologize for my 'I know this guy...' approach. But it would be unethical of me to give his name, without his permission, on account of his position.

No need to apologize. Personal conversations and such should never be quoted, without the express permission of the person, with an identifying name or identifiable source.

[NonValueAdded]

I'm waiting to hear the Ralph Nader / Corvair objection. In addition to exploding cars, there is the pesky little problem of invisible hydrogen fires.

Why don't we just wait until Dr. Brown invents the Mr. Fusion?

[Restorer]

And as far as the nuclear waste "problem". It isn't.

Absolutely correct. Among other possibilities, spent fuel can be deposited in subduction areas of the ocean floor and thereby injected back into the magma it originally came from.

BTW, nuclear power produces a far smaller volume of waste than any other power source.

[William Tell]

ancient_geezer said: "Gluconic acid is an organic acid consisting of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen (C6H11O7) that is produced from glucose sugar, an abundant and renewable carbon source. "

Wow. A renewable source of clean-burning hydrogen. I can hardly wait.

I know... while I'm waiting I'll see if I can balance this equation:

2( C6H1107 ) => 11H2 + 7( CO2 ) + 5C

No, that can't be right. CO2 is that nasty greenhouse stuff that causes all the global warming. Perhaps this reaction results in the release of large masses of free oxygen and neatly stacked bags of charcoal briquettes.

[SAJ]

Use platinum to generate hydrogen? Bwahahahahahaha! What a maroon!

If fossil fuels are 'exhaustible', as the lefty dingbats would have it, then platinum is some hundreds of thousands of times more exhaustible. There just ain't that much of it in the earth's mantle.

Costs? Lessee here, platinum is about $690/TrOz spot right now. Raw sugar is about 7 cents/lb., 17.5 cents/kg. Avg grade of crude is $33.00 spot, implying roughly $0.94/gal gasoline at wholesale. One gallon gasoline weighs 5.9-6.5 lbs, call it 6.2 lbs., implying 14.9 cents/lb or 0.93 CENTS per oz. The chem energy in a gallon is between 33-44 KwH electricity-equivalent (let's use the low figure), so we have a fig of 2.84 cents/KwH. Assume a typical gasoline engine is only 20% efficient, bringing the price up to 14.2 cents/KwH.

Now, and very generously, let's triple that figure in order to allow for the amortised costs of exploration, transportation, and refining. This nets out to 42.6 cents per EFFECTIVE KwH for gasoline, under very negative cost assumptions.

Now, the other side. Hydrogen comprises 6.4% of sugar by weight. One kg of H2 has just a scosh less chem energy than 1 gallon gasoline (and more than 30% of that comes frm the carbon, let's say (laughably) that H represents 70% of the chem energy in sugar). If 1 oz of platinum can process 1000 kg of sugar (very dubious assumption) at 100% efficiency (ridiculous, of course)and there are ZERO development costs whatever, and an H2 engine runs at 80% efficiency (dream on, but, what the heck), then: raw cost = $690 + $175 + $200 (est cost of whatever intermediate chemicals are required -- you can't just place an oz. of PL in a pile of sugar and get energy, after all), or $1065. Hydrogen produced, @5% of weight = 50 kg. KwH produced, @ 33KwH/kg * .70 (too generous) = 1155, effective KwH, @ 80% = 924...or, $1.15 per effective KwH, under completely Pollyannesque assumptions.

Under more realistic assumptions (chem energy fr/H in sugar @ 50%, process 70% efficient, engine 50% efficient, development cost = 3 (conservatively) times material cost over 20 years), the effective per-KwH figure becomes $19.71, or just 46.93 TIMES as expensive! Good grief, can't these folks ADD?

Someone's snorting something, and it's not sugar.

[Hodar]

But it is NOT an energy source itself, and never will be.

Never is a very long time. There is immense power stuck inside that little Hydrogen atom. You can do alot with it, either as an ionic propellant, in a nuclear reaction, or as fissionable material. But, if we take your advice and never look at it; your prediction will inevitably come true.

[Willie Green]

Never is a very long time. There is immense power stuck inside that little Hydrogen atom.

Dubya's fuel cell proposal is not about nuclear fusion.

[SAJ]

Apologies -- error in the text above. Mistyped one of the factors. Text should read, beginning at '@ 5%':

@6.4% of weight = 64 kg. KwH produced, @ 33KwH/kg * .70 (too generous) = 1478, effective KwH, @ 80% = 1183...or, $0.98 per effective KwH, under completely Pollyannesque assumptions.

Under more realistic assumptions (chem energy fr/H in sugar @ 50%, process 70% efficient, engine 50% efficient, development cost = 3 (conservatively) times material cost over 20 years), the effective per-KwH figure becomes $11.52, or just 27.44 TIMES as expensive as gasoline, with gas costs computed under very negative assumptions! Good grief, can't these folks ADD?

[SAJ]

Chortle! Marvelous satire.

[ancient_geezer]

The gluconic acid faxcilitates the catalytic action of iron in reducing water to H2 & O2. It is not consumed in the action.

I suggest you learn abit more about catalyisis before displaying your ignorance.

[ancient_geezer]

OOPs "iron" should be "platinum" above, however similar work is being done with iron and other matterials as a catalysts.

I suggest you bring your self up to date instead of merely playing the blowhard.

[bert]

He was correct.

Jet engines don't work in spacse. Rockets work in space and respond to Newton's law that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Not to mention the fact that in space there is no air for the jet to consume.

[NCLou]

Marked for later reading

[Radioactive]

Hydrogen can be economical if using water and wind power.
There are windmills in the works that will generate 120 volts and are very efficient. Hydrogen can be generated by extracting hydrogen from water using electricity from these windmills.

[ancient_geezer]

SAJ: Use platinum to generate hydrogen? Bwahahahahahaha! What a maroon

I see you object to the use of molecular layer of platinum in catalyzing the burning of gasoline as well?

The amount of platinum necessary is quite minute. it is not consumed in the catalysis of water to H2 & 02.

However the use of platinum is not the issue of the article:

http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/v33_2_00/micropower.htm

"After several different experiments," Woodward says, "we then observed that mixing iron powder with water also produced hydrogen at ambient temperatures, but the production was not sustained. Then we discovered that if we add gluconic acid as well as iron powder to the water, we obtained sustained hydrogen production under certain conditions."

Iron plus gluconic acid is the catalytic agent being used.

William Tell: 2( C6H1107 ) => 11H2 + 7( CO2 ) + 5C

Is not applicable, as the gluconic acid is not consumed, it merely activates the iron catalyst in the reduction of water.

I suggest you read before leaping to display your lack of talents in catalytic chemistry.

[Varmint Al]

1. Thermodynamics is not like government. You don't get something for nothing. Or how politicians milk the people with hot wind.
2. There are no deposits of free hydrogen one can mine like we do fossil fuels. Hydrogen in nature is combined with other elements. Free hydrogen has already escaped into space.
3. Hydrogen is similar to a car battery. It is a means of storing the energy in a form that can be transported in a vehicle like an automobile.
4. To dissociate the hydrogen from water, by any means, the energy of the hydrogen - oxygen bond, must be externally supplied. One way is with large amounts of electricity. Even catalysts and organic acids would require energy from some source to break the bonds. Catalysts aid certain reactions and are not a perpetual motion machine.
5. Using fossil fuels to make free hydrogen causes the pollution (maybe there would be some useful byproducts) at the point where the hydrogen is made. The burning of the hydrogen in vehicles takes place it would be pollution free. This is a way of moving the pollution to the country, (refineries or coal plants) and keeping the cities clean. Remember the map? Keep the blue areas clean and pollute the blue areas.
6. There are extremely large amounts of energy in Deuterium and Tritium that a fusion reaction could release. The use of hydrogen in this discussion does not address these possibilities. Think cold fusion.
7. Hydrogen in quantity is difficult to store and transport. Liquid hydrogen is one possibility, but requires difficult cryogenic processes and is only for temporary storage. Some metals like palladium are porous to hydrogen and could possibly used to store hydrogen.

This has been a very interesting thread. There seems to be a lot of hot wind and artful writing, but very little appreciation to physical reality. Fire away, I have my asbestos suit on.

Bert, thanks for posting the correction on jet engines in space. Even rockets are only temporary for space. Once the fuel mass has been expelled they no longer work. And, a jet engine doesn't push against the air, like someone said. That one reminds me of the wet noodle and the tiger.

[SAJ]

As a matter of fact, I've always thought that using PGMs for catalysis in automobiles was economically insupportable. However, it is now a fact of practical life and therefore moot; nothing to be done about it now. Expanding this type of economic lunacy is another matter entirely, and should be resisted by anyone who can add.

'Quite minute'? I agree. You'll note that I alloted 1 oz. Troy for each 1000 kg of sugar -- minute by any standard, although I doubt that catalysis will be continuous for that quantity (no empirical data, just a thumbnail view). I did not comment at all on the use of platinum in the catalysis of water, obviously a more efficient source of H2 per unit weight than any sugar. Your mentioning a topic that I did not address constitutes an old-fashioned straw man argument, pure and simple.

Nor was my comment addressed to the content of the article, but merely, as the first sentence makes VERY clear, to the concept of H2 production via a platinum-sugar process, as posted within the thread of responses. Another straw man.

May I suggest that you, in turn, not crime me with commentary on matters about which I made no comment. If you'd care to discuss the economics of the topic I addressed, fine, please by all means do so.

[ancient_geezer]

as the first sentence makes VERY clear, to the concept of H2 production via a platinum-sugar process,

Wrong read the full article including subsequent paragraphs again, the platinum-sugar decomposition process was merely an example of prior process, the (iron, gluconic acid)-H20 decomposition takes the place of.

"After several different experiments," Woodward says, "we then observed that mixing iron powder with water also produced hydrogen at ambient temperatures, but the production was not sustained. Then we discovered that if we add gluconic acid as well as iron powder to the water, we obtained sustained hydrogen production under certain conditions."

In fact the article hyperlinks to even a third mechanism under study for commercial hydrogen production:

http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/v33_2_00/hydrogen.htm

Water molecules can be split into hydrogen and oxygen atoms using algae, one-celled organisms that thrive in water. ORNL researchers Eli Greenbaum (an ORNL corporate fellow), James Lee, and Steve Blankinship—all in the Chemical Technology Division (CTD)—have discovered that the green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii can produce hydrogen and oxygen from water under certain conditions. "It's the biological version of electrolysis," Greenbaum says. "The goal of the research is to replace conventional electrolysis with a renewable biological process for hydrogen production."

These algae normally grow new cells by photosynthesis, using carbon dioxide from the air in the presence of sunlight. But after placing the aquatic organisms in a large flask of water illuminated by lamps, the ORNL researchers "trick" the algae by depriving them of carbon dioxide and oxygen.

The point being there are many avenues of research, these being only examples of a broad effort, any of which are very likely to yield commercially efficient quantities of hydrogen for fuel use with application of research & development.

Your mentioning a topic that I did not address constitutes an old-fashioned straw man argument, pure and simple.

Your focus on "platinum" dependant processes was the strawman you invoke, for which I called you to task. The crux of the article was concerning additional methodologies that reduce H20 to its constituents a@80 Co heat as energy input in one instance, and a hyperlinked article concerning the use of bio processes in another. Both are capable of sustaining Hydrogen fuel cell technology for use in many areas areas, transportation being only an extension of application of the technologies under investigation.

Your dismissal using platinum dependance is merely a diversion from the real basis of the story as regards technologies based on other catalytic agents and what I intended to point out.

Secondly your 1 troy oz. platinum per 1000 Kg of sugar,

I alloted 1 oz. Troy for each 1000 kg of sugar -- minute by any standard

is without foundation as well, catalyst is not consumed in the process. Any losses are purely mechanical, and controllable by the matrix used to suspend catalysts maintaining active solutions in contact with them. This is true of all catalysts and thus the loss of catalyst becomes a matter of engineering of the process as opposed to any inherent consumption. For you to assume an arbitrary economic loss based on platinum is pure speculation not rooted in engineering practices.