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.

[SAJ]

Ah, the old free lunch argument. PL will catalyze whatever, forever. Doubtless just as it does in automobile emission systems.

One more time: I **ONLY** commented on the putative platinum-sugar process, and no other. EVERY bit of your text to me dealing with any other framework is simply not on topic.

Dear me, that seems to be virtually all the text.

Sorry, but the mkts are open now, and I won't have time to respond to ANY further commentary not specifically dealing with the economics of the purported platinum-sugar process. And probably not then, either: gold's down $5.00, nat gas up 7 cents in the first 10 mins...going to be a busy night.

Ta-ta.

[dinodino]

I think your assumption that 1 oz. of platinum would be required to process 100 kg of sugar is way off. Nevertheless, all this talk about hydrogen-powered cars is a bunch of hooey.

[William Tell]

SAJ said: "Chortle! Marvelous satire."

Thanks.

ancient_geezer said: "I suggest you learn abit more about catalyisis[sic] before displaying your ignorance."
----------------------------------

I read the article from which you quoted before I posted. I have read it twice since then. Here are some key phrases from the article:

"a new way to make hydrogen from sugar"
"glucose-digesting"
"the mechanism of the reaction is not fully understood"
"iron may be serving as the active catalyst"
"after 100 hours of the experiment, we lost little metal"
"Gluconic acid is produced from glucose sugar, [a] ... renewable carbon source."

I have read write-ups of high school chemistry labs with more precision and clarity than this article. It reads like some of the original articles on "cold fusion".

I saw nothing in the article to suggest that the gluconic acid is not consumed. Why bother to mention that it comes from a "renewable" source if it is not consumed?

[Varmint Al]

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 not where it is used. 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.

 

CORRECTION: I meant to say keep the BLUE areas pollution free and deposit the pollution in the RED areas.

Another thought: Maybe the Bush administration is supporting the study of hydrogen powered autos to put the emphasis back on nuclear fission. When people finally discuss the use of hydrogen, one of the most practical methods of separating hydrogen would be electrolysis using nuclear energy.

[SAJ]

Actually, I said 1000 kg of sugar. Rather a bit more, true?

I don't for a moment think that H2 power is all 'hooey', but it's WAAAY overhyped until certain technical developments occur.

[bert]

....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......

Back in the good old days, I was a subcontractor on several nuclear plants and really got heated up agains the antinuke types. I passed through the Atlanta airport one day and met some folks with "A little Nookie Never Hurt Anyone" bumperstickers.They were a strange breed....pronuke types. I had some time so I listened. They gave me a magazine called "Nuclear Fusion" that hyped the coming endall to the energy crisis....nuclear fusion. I gave them $10 and got on their mailing list. I loved to read the mag, even tho it was sometimes over the top.

I later learned these guys were agents for Lyndon Larouche. I really liked to read the mag because it had offbeat science history articles where they would pillory some 18th century mathematician or praise to high heaven some 19th century German physics prof. They also liked to write about the golden section and the fabionichi(sp) series. Much later when LL ran for President they called to beg for money. I never gave them a dime but much enjoyed the process of telling them no.

You stated the point that must be understood and not overlooked or swept under the lab table, the energy required to break the hydrogen/oxygen bond is is greater than that released by burning hydrogen.

I lost track of the fusion quest but at last recall, the Russians were in the lead and there were high hopes for a tokamak at Princeton. USSR failed and I suppose the funding dried up and there is now no funding anywhere and thus no real hope for fusion.

[dinodino]

1000kg, whatever. It's still a catalytic reaction, and I maintain that you don't understand how those work.

As far as the "hooey" comment, the point is that with current technologies, a great deal of energy must be expended to produce the hydrogen in the first place. Most of the articles you see lauding hydrogen ignore the energy consumed in production of the hydrogen. Also, the last thing we need is government stepping in--they (government) always seem to back the wrong horse.

[Diddley]

Interesting.
99.9% of your profile is anti-religion.

[Diddley]

.. - which works completely off of self seperated hydrogen.

Could you (briefly) explain this please?
I'm always looking for the truth.

[John Jamieson]

freelectricity.com, now there is a good deal!

[SSN558]

"His comments are written to falsely that imply hydrogen is not efficent as a fuel."

Hydrogen is not a very efficient fuel. My text books are at work or I would quote exact values, but Hydrogens heating value per pound is just fractions of that for hydrocarbon fuels. So the tanks have to be rather large. That is the reason for that rusty abortion you see attached to every space shuttle. Use of hydrogen in the vapor phase would employ even larger tanks, proportionally.

[Diddley]

...or, $1.15 per effective KwH
Compared to $0.15 per effective KwH for electricity, today.

Someone's snorting something, and it's not sugar.
Maybe its Hydrogen.

[tallhappy]

but Hydrogens heating value per pound is just fractions of that for hydrocarbon fuels. So the tanks have to be rather large. That is the reason for that rusty abortion you see attached to every space shuttle.

Why don't they use hydrocarbon fuels for the shuttle?

[SSN558]

The shuttle was conceived as a technology development program, much like the rest of the space program. There was more involved in the shuttle than just getting a payload into orbit. Developing a LOX-Hydrogen reuseable engine was part of that.

The enviromental agenda was also considered when the Vandenburg launch site was under construction, to pacify CA enviro-wackos. The enviromental fallacy of LOX-Hydrogen engines was that every engine component has to be clean enough to eat off of, and the primary means of achieving that cleanliness at the time was Triclorethane. Since that time other cleaning methods such as deionized water have come online.

Other fuels were considered for the shuttle and its successsors. LOX & RP1 (kerosene) as used on the Saturn V was considered. Although allowing for much smaller tanks and therefore more payload, it is a dirty fuel compared to Hydrogen. Also, RP1 tends to carbon foul injectors and is not a good choice for engines that are designed for restart or reuse.

Slush methane is another choice that is cleaner than either RP1 or Hydrogen when all things are considered. It also has more energy per pound than any of the other commonly considerd propellants. It is also abundant and easy to process, but that would be just be too easy on a boondoggle the magnitude of shuttle.

The choice of propellant system always has trade offs. For the ultimate engine poop the choice would be Hydrogen Flouride, as used on some of the star wars interceptors. You want to know how to make a 10,000 pound thruster that will fit in a shoe box, Hydrogen Flouride is the answer. Problem is that it is so corrosive it eats right through stainless steel like a hot knife in butter.

BTW. Guess why the shuttle required solid rocket boosters ? Could have something to do with that big ugly Hydrogen tank, I imagine. LOX-Hydrogen engines were good for Morton Thiokel too.

[John Jamieson]

We did on the first stage of the mighty Saturn V (RP1) and there are some good reasons to go back (smaller tanks).

[Hodar]

As my profile has nothing to do with anything remotely associated with Hydrogen; and your post is little more than a poorly disguised attack; please take the time to read the profile again. It's ok to move your lips, read it s-l-o-w-l-y, aloud if you have to, or have someone read it for you.

[Diddley]

Yeah. You caught me.
I veered of the track on an old thread, which isn't my normal mode.
:-)

[Core_Conservative]

Sorry it took so long for the reply - but here is a link to an article that may answer your questions - I lost the original research link when I moved from one work site to another - need to retrace my steps as to the location of the original site. Here is the artilcle link: http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0131/p13s01-stss.html

[Diddley]

Thanks for the link. I'll study it.