« Süd-Chemie to Invest C$35M to Boost Lithium Iron Phosphate Production for Li-Ion Batteries | Main | Biofuels Entrepreneur Seeking £80M for Biobutanol Plant in Ireland »
DOE Soliciting Project on Hydrogen Emissions
11 February 2007
The US Department of Energy has issued a solicitation for a project to study the potential environmental effects from increased emissions of hydrogen and criteria pollutant emissions avoided or gained through the expansion of hydrogen use in the transportation and stationary power markets.
The purpose of the study will be to systematically identify and examine possible near- and long-term ecological and environmental effects of the production of hydrogen (based on the DOE hydrogen production strategy) from various energy sources as well as the use of that hydrogen as a transportation fuel and for stationary power.
The researchers awarded the project will need to develop precise systems-based engineering models of the likely hydrogen and criteria pollutant emissions and quantify the potential impacts of the different market penetration scenarios.
All types of entities are eligible to apply, except other Federal agencies, Federally Funded Research and Development Center contractors, and nonprofit organizations that engaged in lobbying activities after December 31, 1995.
The solicitation closes April 18, 2007. Total estimated funding available is $600,000 pending Congressional Appropriations, with an expectation of one selected project of two years duration.
Resources:
February 11, 2007 in Emissions, Hydrogen | Permalink | Comments (54) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/16049002
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DOE Soliciting Project on Hydrogen Emissions:
Comments
I still think watse streams thru plasma with Algaeculture on the back end for minimal Carbon out is a great idea. Lots of Electricity, and biofuel with Hydrogen as a possible output as well.
Posted by: Andy | Feb 11, 2007 7:00:22 AM
This study should put a dagger in the heart of hydrogen as a transportation fuel. Someday we will study the environmental impact of doing something before before investing billions in tax dollars. Oh wait a minute, we all ready did and found out a hydrogen fuel cell car was a worse performer even compared to a 70's engine with no emissions control.
Posted by: Kit P | Feb 11, 2007 10:34:22 AM
Kit P -
unfortunately, nothing ever puts a dagger in the heart of the nuclear lobby. That's because scientists who know how to build nuclear bombs must be kept gainfully employed in a domestic industry if you're no longer building new bombs - lest they look for alternate employers. Besides, now that the nuclear lobby has finally managed to get everyone focussed on global warming they will claim their technology is the clean, safe and cheap solution. Past experience shows it is none of the above (most recent example: leaking rubber seals at Fosmark in Sweden, Vattenfall has shut down the facility indefinitely as a precaution).
When it comes to military spending in the US, there are effectively no limits and no effective budget oversight. Therefore, if hydrogen fuel cells turn out to be a commercial flop, the armed forces will still buy it. Your grandchildrens' tax dollars at work.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Feb 11, 2007 11:09:42 AM
Hey those are my lobbiests that you are talking about, I give them money they, they send me a newsletter. They communicate my position to my elected leaders better than I can on my own. I really did not think they were that good. Al Gore and Dr. Hansen are shills for the nuclear industry?
I also like when smart scientist work on finding good environment choices instead of building weapons. A very large part of DOE's buget is for environment research and cleanup including destroying nuclear weapons material.
I support research for producing hydrogen without fossil fuel. I also support research for developing fuel cells. However, the physical properties of hydrogen make it a very poor choice for transportation fuel. If you look at the physical properties of biodiesel and the recent improvements using digital control of compression ignition engines, it is a much more promising source of alternate transportation fuel at a much lower cost.
Posted by: Kit P | Feb 11, 2007 2:26:49 PM
Kit P,
If you would produce H2 right at the point of dispensing to end-users, you will be able to overcome the inefficiency of H2 transportation and distribution. Do not use the liquid fuel model to base the Hydrogen economy on. Liquid fuel is more difficult to make synthetically and can pollute local soil and water, so must be centrally made and transported long-distance. H2 is so easy to make and harder to transport. Highly-efficient vehicles like the Honda FCX and the next-gen Prius can travel over 300 miles on 4kg of H2, a practical storage limit at 5000psi pressure. Large trucks and buses have plenty of room to store Compressed H2. Carbon-fiber re-enforced H2 tank would not explode like metal tank would. H2 leakage would quickly rise above and would not engulf the occupants like a gasoline fire would in a tank leakage.
Biodiesel will not be present in any significant number (5-10% the most) to power our entire transportation sector on.
HydrogenTruth...please google this, as I can't overcome Comment Spam Guard. Look at page "Villains and Dirty Lies." Guess who pays for most of the negative assessments against Hydrogen? Big Oil, especially Ex_on-M_bil! They are those with the most to lose if a near-term hydrogen economy is to happen.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Feb 11, 2007 3:24:31 PM
Too bad they didn't think to exclude private corporations that are (or have been) engaged in lobbying as well as non-profits.
Posted by: Erick | Feb 11, 2007 3:28:06 PM
Exxon supports the Hydrogen scam for the same reason GM supports it, for the same reason Bush Co. supports it:
As long as people believe this fairy tale there will be no pressure to do anything real about oil consumption.
Posted by: DS | Feb 11, 2007 6:06:19 PM
DS,
Exxon may have supported Hydrogen when Hydrogen showed no promise, but, once the scientists were able to pull the rabbit out of the hat with respect to Hydrogen technologies, Exxon started to sponsor organizations to start bad-mouthing Hydrogen. The near-term adaptation of the Hydrogen economy would be Big Oil's biggest nightmare.
The Hydrogen economy will simultaneously free us from petroleum dependency as well as giving us a chance to reduce global warming, and be on good term with the EU, who are proposing to raise tariff on American exports for not participating in Kyoto treaty. 3 fer 1 is a mighty good deal, and you may wanna throw in "clean air" and "no more oil spills" for even more freebies.
DS, please kindly look into HydrogenTruth's website, (sorry, you'll have to google that one, thanks to Comment Spam guard) . Please do me a favor and do some more fact-searching on Hydrogen, instead of bad-mouthing Hydrogen without adequate conceptual understanding about the latest in Hydrogen Technology.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Feb 11, 2007 8:36:15 PM
Roger, a worker has been killed already this year dispensing hydrogen and five workers at the plant were taken to the hospital. Hydrogen is a significant safety hazard. Process safety regulations that derived from the Bophal accident prescribe a process to handle such hazards. Yes, hydrogen can be handled safely but ....
Producing hydrogen is very inefficient, at the end use and other wise. There is no point in discussing how efficient a Honda FXC might be since the whole concept is a loser until researchers develop high temperature chemical processes to produce H2. Since we already use lots of H2 for industrial purposes, this research money is well spent.
I did look at the HydrogenTruth web site. Wow, the sun has hydrogen and water has two atoms of hydrogen. That stuff about Exxon, I should have know I was brain washed. It is hard to find a web site that is as misleading as HydrogenTruth. Zero information is provided about the technology to produce hydrogen and how it would reduce the environmental impact of transportation.
Posted by: Kit P | Feb 11, 2007 8:56:45 PM
Roger Pham: 75 mi/kg means 1.96 MJ (H)/mile, or 0.55 kWh/mile. At 75% hydrogen production efficiency, you'd have to put in 0.73 kWh/mile. Compare to a pure EV at 0.20 kWh/mile.
It takes 3-4 times as much electricity to propel a vehicle with hydrogen compared to using batteries.
With what we know about hydrogen, only a fool would continue to promote it. If that's what you are, so be it.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 11, 2007 9:33:36 PM
Yeesh its simple people.
we have 3 ways to power a car in the future.
ev h2 and biofuels.
None of these alone can handle even half the market.
So do I have to tattoo a damn clue on your foreheads as to why all 3 are being run with?
DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
Ive seen more common sense fropm a 2 year old.
You are looking at change for a buck and argueing why we dnt need the times because the uarter or the nickles are better yet amazingly enough even a kid can see you need all the damn coinds to make the bloody buck.
Now here is the real question. Even with ev n2 and biofuels is it enough?
How the hell are we gona fuel transport ships? Is biofuel good for a jet? You sure as hell cant run a power santion on ev;/ Wo is a biofueled power station alot more polluting then the current natural gas ones? Will we be able to make enough biomethane to power them? Will we need hythane or even pure h2 to power them all? Can wind and \wolar and wave and whatever replace that many power plants?
Posted by: wintermane | Feb 11, 2007 10:52:54 PM
Kit P,
So one person died from H2 dispensing. And "we already use lots of H2 for industrial purposes," as you've just stated.
Do you know that not too long ago, over 20 people died from an explosion at BP oil refinery somewhere in Texas, and many more were injured. Even Jim Baker, former US Sec of State, spoke up to condemn BP safety practice. Do you know how many gasoline car fire occurs each year? ~somewhere around 5,000 cars. Do we hear anyone trying to scare us that gasoline is unsafe?
Where do you get the data that "producing H2 is very inefficient"? Do you know that producing electricity from fossil fuel is only 35-40% efficient for coal-fired plants, or ~55% from combine-cycle NG plants? Coal (or biomass) gasification to H2 is much more efficient than coal to electricity, and if you can recycle the heat produced in coal gasification for high-temp steam electrolysis using wind electricity at twice the electrical efficiency of normal-temp electrolysis that you referred to as inefficient, and the resultant waste heat further used for Sterling or steam turbine for electrical generation, then you'll get unprecedented energy conversion efficiency.
Kit P and Eng-Poet,
I'm afraid that most of us have already been brainwashed by the likes of Ulf Bossel and other eminent organizations, using old knowledge of H2 technology, (or $$$ from Big Oil et al.) into believing that the H2 economy is impractical.
Just modify the likes of the Prius or Honda civic hybrid to run on H2, add a ~$1800 Quantum H2 tank of ~4kg plus filling hardware, and bingo, an H2-capable high-efficiency vehicle with adequate range.
Build a H2 gasifier/dispensing station every 100 square miles of urban area, and bingo, the "trillion-dollar H2 infrastructure problem" solved! (what trillion dollar? NOT, when the same gasifier can produce syngas for F/T synthesis of liquid fuel from coal or biomass, waiting patiently for the fleet of H2-vehicle to build up in number) The cost of building the coal/biomass gasifier will pay for itself that way, such that by the time H2-vehicle will arrive in numbers, the "H2-infrastructure" has already paid for itself.
AT WHAT PRICE WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PAY FOR PETROLEUM INDEPENDENCE? Coal or biomass gasification is the most proven solution to get us off petroleum dependency in the immediate future.
If you wanna go the PHEV route using a 16kwh battery pack like the Volt, then be ready to shell out ~$10,000-$16,000 for the additional cost of the battery pack. The mass-produced Prius 1.3kwh battery costs $2,000 USD, or $1,500/kwh, and how long will it last? The $1800 Quantum H2 tank will last several life-times of the car. 10 Altairnano 35kwh packs cost $750,000, or ~$2,000/kwh.
USE YOUR OWN BRAIN AND MAKE YOUR OWN CONCLUSION! QUIT FOLLOWING THE ANTI-HYDROGEN BANDWAGON THAT IS FINANCED BY THOSE WHO WOULD HAVE THE MOST TO LOSE SHOULD A NEAR-TERM H2 ECONOMY OCCUR.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Feb 11, 2007 10:59:54 PM
Wintermane,
U r 1/2 right! Yes, we will likely see BEV and biofuel in the future for those who are scared of H2, not knowing that H2 is the safer route...while H2 can handle virtually all our energy needs, such as serving as backup fuel for running power stations (solar and wind will be the main source of electricity), powering our jets and space ships and space plane of the future, and running our ships as well. H2 from home pipeline supplied from a local H2 gasifier can heat your house as well, though I would like to see home H2 powering a genset for combined heat and power generation. Place the H2 genset outdoor or in the attic with a H2 sensor warning and autos-shutoff, and the risk of H2 explosion will be eliminated. Like NG, strong odor can also be added to H2 in home pipeline so you can detect a H2 leak.
For ultra-long-distance driving, fill up the H2 tank with NG, and you can travel 3 times as far, great for rural areas. Rural areas can still use NG derived from H2 when the fossil supply of NG will run out.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Feb 11, 2007 11:16:18 PM
Roger, if I may ask a few uneducated questions:
What about water vapour emissions as a GHG?
Do you see the hydrogen-ICE as solely a transitionary technology to fuel-cells?
In what scenarios would a BEV still be a better choice?
TIA.
Posted by: DC | Feb 11, 2007 11:55:54 PM
DC,
- usually you produce hydrogen using water a hydrogen source. therefore you have net emissions. urban centres might find a new kind of pollution.
- hydrogen ice have a distinctly lower efficiency than fuel cell engines, though faces lower technical problems.
- bev save energy, in particular when using renewable electricity (wind, water). the hydrogen car loses half of it through the double-conversion from el to h2 and back.
Posted by: observer | Feb 12, 2007 4:59:10 AM
DC, observer -
(a) all combustion processes, both technical and biological, produce water.
(b) water vapor is a greenhouse gas, the surface of the earth would be seriously cold without it.
(c) the amount of water vapor produced directly by human activity, large though it seems, is actually negligible compared to the naturally occurring solar-powered evaporation from the oceans.
(d) the so-called greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbon refrigerants, SF6 etc. drive a positive feedback loop in which high temperatures in the troposphere permit higher absolute water vapor content at the same relative humidity. The only reason we don't have a runaway greenhouse effect is that rising water vapor will eventually condense and form clouds - these reflect much more of the incident sunlight than the ocean surface does, i.e. there is also a negative feedback loop.
The net result of increased greenhouse gas emissions is therefore a new equilibrium for the water vapor in the troposphere, at a higher level. It's the water vapor that is responsible for the bulk of the climate change, such as changing rainfall patterns, storm frequencies etc. Anthropogenic activity is therefore very much the tail wagging the dog, because the impact of our direct emissions is greatly amplified by the effect on the solar-powered water cycle.
The problem is that the net warming effect is essentially the difference between two large numbers representing these feedback loops, both of which can only be estimated. Deep ocean circulations and cloud formation processes, for example, are still far from fully understood, especially at local scales. Secondary effects, such as methane outgassing from peat bogs, also throw a spanner in the works. Hence, there is a wide discrepancy about just how large an increase in average temperature we should expect.
More relevant than the increase in global average temperature are changes in regional climate, because these affect real estate values and patterns of human migration. Homo sapiens as a species will eventually adapt, as will many others. The real issue is that very rapid climate change can lead to an increased rate of extinction in the animal and plant world and, more prosaically, a severe devaluation of real estate assets in certain areas. Add to that increased (illegal) migration from the Third World to OECD countries and you have a serious political dilemma on your hands.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Feb 12, 2007 6:08:09 AM
At the present time and for at least the next 25 years, an H2 economy is very impractical for transportation fuel. This is easy to explain if you have taken college chemistry and thermodynamics. A few years ago, I lead a hazard analysis team at a chemical processing plant that used H2. In this case, there is no practical alternative to H2. I can give many examples of uses of H2 is based on unique chemical and physical properties. The safety issue with H2 is not that it burns but it detonates too. Putting bad smelling stuff is not an option when purity is also a criteria.
Now look at H2 as a fuel. I can convert biogas to electricity using a fuel cell ($18M) or an ICE ($2M). If I can get 9 times the renewable energy capacity, what is the practical choice if your criteria is energy independence?
Now look at H2 as transportation fuel. The H2 molecules is one of the most difficult gases to handle. Methane is much easier to handle. We already have a natural gas pipelines and cars fueled with natural gas. Converting one CH4 molecule to two H2 molecules results in a large net energy loss. Using FT we can link CH4 molecules to make synthetic with a marginal loss (10%). Since we are not importing LNG again, not of this helps energy independence.
Let me repeat again that H2 as transportation fuel is a very bad choice when considering the environment. Furthermore, my prediction for the next 25 years is that solar and wind will become a smaller share of the market. Yes, state governments have established mandates. As California has demonstrated with EVs, government can not make it practical.
Posted by: Kit P | Feb 12, 2007 6:50:32 AM
Well, Rafael explained classic greenhouse theory, where GHG effect of additional CO2 in atmosphere is multiplied by factor of 3 or 4 by additional water vapor. There are couple of serious uncertainties, which mare prediction models based on it:
1) amount of water vapor multiplication is unclear;
2) current models are too crude (both physically and numerically) to account for troposphere clouds creation;
3) the biggest deficiency of such models is that direct GHG effect is only part of heat exchange in atmosphere. Substantial (some researches claim that the most) part of heat exchange is carried out by convective heat exchange: warm air heated by Earth surface rises in upper atmosphere layers and radiate heat in the space by-passing classic GHG mechanism. Exact share of convective heat exchange is unknown at present time.
Also, there is relatively new (about 10 years old) theory, which explains current and past climate variations with astounding precision. Roughly speaking, solar activity significantly influence Earth magnetic field, which in turn modulate amount of cosmic radiation flux which reach the Earth surface. Traces of ionized air after cosmic particles serve as nuclei for condensation of water vapor and creation of troposphere clouds, which have very substantial cooling effect. Couple of incredible interesting researches on the subject are released just recently. The best description of the process I have read could be found here:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
Posted by: Andrey | Feb 12, 2007 8:28:35 AM
Kit: Your not much of a believer in technological advances are you. EVs have gone from totally impractical to being on the very edge of competitiveness. While batteries remain the biggest stumbling block to EVs, things have changed. It used to be that power,energy density,weight,longevity and price were all problems. Today, the only real obstacle is price. Give it another two years and we'll start to see movement in price. Hydrogen has more hurdles to overcome, but I would hesitate to claim that it's impossible.
Posted by: Neil | Feb 12, 2007 8:31:25 AM
As far as biofuels go the main problem for us will be that most of the fuel will be diverted by law to val areas such as ships jets mergency and police and armed forces... trucking.. mass transit.
Its very likely after all those are done taking thier share we will be left with very little and to stretch it out biofueled cars will be ITTY BITTY and very regulated. In short they will suck.
Ev cars will be much better but very limited even 30 years from now unless we get very lucky indeed.
H2.. will be for everything the others miss.. recreational vehicles from plane to boat to car. Syv sports car touring car racing cars
And even after all that its very likely a sizable fraction of the population will be ;eft out.
Posted by: wintermane | Feb 12, 2007 8:54:01 AM
Rafael,
Thanks for the most erudition of explanation of GHG effect of water vapor. I don't think I can do as good a job to put an end to the concern regarding water vapor emission of vehicles.
DC,
H2-ICE-HEV can co-exist with FC-HEV, as the efficiency of both will be quite comparable. We haven't seen the ultimate in H2-ICE efficiency yet. I predict in the range of 45-50% thermal efficiency, which is comparable with FC. BEV would be great if and when the cost, energy density, durability, and charging time of battery can match that of ICE-HEV. I have nothing against BEV, and I still am a hopeful observer of Battery technology.
Kit P,
You've stated that we're using H2 a lot in industry right now. So, the H2 technology is quite mature, but we haven't seen the ultimate in H2 production efficiency, storage or distribution as yet. Keep an open mind!
The excitement is to watch for the real-world trial of a fleet of 100 of Honda next-gen FCV, or of GM Equinox etc. The current Honda FCX are doing quite well and most operators are happy with it, except that its range is a bit below par, which will be corrected by the next gen Honda FCX. Time will tell, my friends! World-wide developments in H2-vehicle are quite active, for example, in Scandinavia, Germany, GB, Japan, Korea, China, India, etc...You wouldn't think that all these scientists and engineers are fools, would you?
Posted by: Roger Pham | Feb 12, 2007 11:43:15 AM
1000000$ FCX not even as efficient as a 25000$ Prius CNG.
Go to Air Resources Board of California. That starts with www period arb period ca period gov.
Do a search for
energy and greenhouse gases considerations for various zev alternatives
On page 23 - the million dollar fuel cell prototype is less efficient then the $25000 CNG Prius in energy consumption.
The FCX's hydrogen fuel is burned NG which causes the same amount of pollution as burning the gas in the Prius.
The paper also shows that EVs are much more efficient then FCV.
Posted by: Dario | Feb 12, 2007 12:41:01 PM
Notice how Roger Pham dismisses hard proof that his scheme is impractical — nay, a road to ruin — and blithely blathers on. Here it is, in detail, using slightly different numbers (going straight to the same conclusion):
Heat of combustion of hydrogen: 141.9 MJ/kg.
Energy consumption of a hydrogen vehicle @ 75 mi/kg: 1.89 MJ/mi = 0.53 kWh/mi
Energy required to produce the hydrogen at 75% efficiency: 0.70 kWh/mi
Typical energy required by a BEV: 0.20 kWh/mi
So if you want a "hydrogen economy" based on renewable energy, you not only get to spend a trillion dollars to build new a new fueling infrastructure, you get to build 3.5 times as much renewable generation capacity to feed it. This was true when I wrote Why hydrogen is no route to renewables, and it'll stay true until someone changes the laws of physics and chemistry.
This proves one thing: Facts are irrelevant to Roger's hydrogen advocacy. So are truth and reason. And so long as our oil-dominated government is throwing research money away on this boondoggle, he should be regarded as a tool, witting or not, of Exxon-Mobil.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 12, 2007 4:31:22 PM
Roger is nothing if not persistent. Oh well, we all have our own advocacies, mine is light duty BEVs. Even those will require technological improvement (cheaper batteries). Hydrogen is a valid energy carrier, it just requires a number of breakthroughs. (creation, transportation, infrastructure and Fuel cell costs). If big oil wants to continue to fund the research, that's fine with me. They will need hydrogen if they want to maintain their position as suppliers of transportation fuels for LDVs. (And bio-fuels for heavy transport). I do wish that governments would be a bit more even-handed with their research funding.
Posted by: Neil | Feb 12, 2007 5:11:51 PM
The people in charge simply wlooked at where we are going and what tools we have and need. H2 is not an orgasim its not a mint chip icecream its not a work of art and its not a pop band. Its a tool.
Why did they spend so much on this tool? Because THEY intend to use it.
They invested enough money into battery tech for thier tool. They invest enough tech into fuel cells for thier tool. All they care about is thier tool.
And to be blunt you cant assume thier tool is earmarked to be sold to you. Thus it doesnt matter what you think.
All that matters is when they sell the tool will thier matrget people buy it and can they profit from it.
Concidering thier target the answer is YES.
And that is the only "fact" that counts.
As all true capitalists know it doesnt matter what you make it just matters who the heck would want it.
Posted by: wintermane | Feb 12, 2007 5:46:32 PM
You are all missing the boat here. The real use for h2 is in to the Fischer-Tropisch process. Wind produced electricity to electrolysis to h2.This h2 combined with co2 captured from coal fired production plants can make affordable high quality fuel. The bonus is that it is a 100% co2 neutral process. It consumes the same amount of co2 as it produces. No need for fuel cells, transmission lines, new engines or fuel transportation systems. F-T fuels will run in any diesel or jet engine made today. When co2 credits are used the fuel can be produced for under $2 a gallon
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/a_proposal_for_.html
Posted by: Winds of Change | Feb 12, 2007 5:55:31 PM
Eng-Poet,
I've shown calculations here repeatedly that when you produce H2 using the most efficient means available vs. BEV when charged with the most efficient electrical generation efficiency, THE SOURCE-TO-WHEEL EFFICIENCIES OF H2-HEV AND BEV ARE COMPARABLE.
DO NOT COMPARE H2 PRODUCED BY ELECTROLYSIS AT NORMAL TEMPERATURE WITH BEV, BECAUSE THIS IS THE LEAST EFFICIENT WAY OF GENERATING H2! (and most costly, too)
Now then, let's use H2 produced by high-temp electrolysis using electricity and heat from a high-temp nuclear reactor, or a solar thermal energy or gasturbine plant's heat coupled with wind electricity. http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/ineel_hightempe.html#more
This link reports that the overall thermal efficiency of H2 generation via the high-temp route is 50%. By contrast, electrical generation via steam turbine is 40%. Honda FCX has a reported efficiency of 60% per Honda website. BEV has a generally-accepted efficiency of 70-75% wall to wheel. So, H2 via high-temp to wheel is 50%x60%=30% source to wheel. BEV: 40%x75%=30%. See the point?
If you manage to dispense H2 at the source of production, then you can avoid the loss of efficiency in H2 transportation. This is true for local gasifier within 4-5 mile average distance to end-users. Or, in the nuclear case, H2 pipelines at a 50-mi radius from the nuclear station to dispensing statins would result in neglibible distribution efficiency loss, clearly less than the 8% loss in electricity transmission.
Now, let's say an ICE-H2-HEV at 45% efficiency using H2 generated at 50% efficiency, .45x.5=22.5%. Let's now add the electrical transmission loss to this picture: .4x.92x.75=27.6%, so BEV wins this time. But, have you added the wattages lost to cabin heating in winter time? In a ICE-HEV or a FCV, cabin heating is free, and in North America, winter temperatures last typically 3-5 months, depending on where you live.
Now let's say H2 is generated via biomass or coal gasification. Considerable heat is required for this, bringing down the efficiency to ~60%. However, with heat recyling first into high-temp electrolysis and then, the lower-temp heat for electricity production, the efficiency of entire process will be >80%.
Now, coal-fired or biomass-fired power plants has efficiency of 40%.
For H2-ICE-HEV, .6x.45= 27%, or .8x.45=36%
For BEV, .4x.75=30%, or with electricity transmission loss, .4x.92x.75=27.6%.
Eng-Poet, the exact percentages is not important. The take-home message is that H2 as energy carrier for transportation is comparable in efficiency with BEV and any other forms of energy. Note that gasoline-ICE at the present has an accepted efficiency of ~16%, so BEV clearly wins, but not against an ICE-HEV whether running on gasoline or H2.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Feb 12, 2007 6:21:12 PM
Winds: I think you need to clarify that your process (or algae to biodiesel) still requires the release of the carbon from the original coal even if it is used as a carrier in between.
If you use the power for electricity (or H2 Roger), then you can still sequester the CO2. If you wish you can use the CO2 for algae which you can burn in a power plant and recycle the CO2 again. I recognize that airplanes will still require a liquid bio-fuel.
Posted by: Neil | Feb 12, 2007 7:07:14 PM
Roger Pham compares a far-off hydrogen production system, to be supplied with heat by nuclear reactors which don't yet exist either, with today's battery-electric vehicles. But when people bring up this point, he talks out of the other side of his mouth as he does above:
If you would produce H2 right at the point of dispensing to end-users, you will be able to overcome the inefficiency of H2 transportation and distribution. Do not use the liquid fuel model to base the Hydrogen economy on.
So he proposes a grossly inefficient electricity-to-H2 model except when he's caught at it, when he switches to the trillion-dollar liquid-fuel model that he badmouths the rest of the time. Do we need a better example of hypocrisy, or will he do?
DS's comment above is absolutely spot-on. Hydrogen is one of several ploys to distract us from getting efficient and going electric (E85 is another). We already have 90% of the infrastructure for the electron economy; it's paid for, you can use it today. Roger Pham wants you to wait indefinitely for hydrogen that's as cheap as gasoline - and in the mean time, why not fill up on Saudi Arabia's best? You have no alternative!
It's time for you to be honest, Roger.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 12, 2007 8:46:39 PM
The only part of the F-T process that is needed to produce syn fuel from a green source of hydrogen is the iron catalyst phase. No coal is needed, no Co2 output. As far as the efficiency of electrolysis there are companies with products on the market that claim in the 80% range http://www.protonenergy.com/ Using this information, efficient wind produced electricity = $2.50 kg h2 , captured co2 under $0.50 kg and F-T efficiency comparable to http://www.rentechinc.com/ numbers. Add in a little Co2 credit and you have a Co2 neutral fuel under $2 a gallon. It is better than any fuel on the market today. It can run in planes, trains & automobiles, trucks and tractors too without any modifications to them or the supply lines that feed them. Ask Adolf Hitler. I call this a short bridge to an h2 economy. Everyone should be happy. The oil companies can still refine and distribute the product and we produce the h2 in this country from multiple green sources. Oh I forgot! The only loser’s foreign oil
Posted by: Winds of Change | Feb 12, 2007 9:11:40 PM
Tellme everyone what do YOU expect as gar as biofuels and ev over the next 50 years REALY?
What is the low end and high end LIKELY adoption and usefulness of ev? Biofuel?
Are you CERTAIN they can do 100% of the job? Can they do everything or just everything you care about?
Will you stake a billion ormore peoples lives on it?
Posted by: wintermane | Feb 12, 2007 10:23:40 PM
Eng-Poet,
The easiest way right now to end petroleum dependency is to gasify biomass and supplementing coal as needed to produce syngas (H2 and CO) and then convert that to liquid fuel products via F/T to power our existing vehicles.
You would wanna build the gasifiers in a distributed fashion of at least one gasifier plant every 100 square miles, so that the H2 from these plants can be dispensed to cars without having to build an expensive H2-infrastructure later on. This way, the H2-filling infrastructure will be mostly built by the time H2 automobiles will be around in large numbers. H2 is non-polluting and is more efficient to produce than liquid fuel conversion of syngas via F/T, that's all.
I do not advocate a do-nothing approach to end petroleum dependency. This is a matter of national security and must be implemented immediately. We are also waiting for PHEV's to be built in large numbers, as well. Biodiesel from oil crops or algae is also a welcomed addition, for now.
Indeed, we can reduce our petroleum dependency in the near-term while planning for a squeaky-clean and efficient future H2 economy at the same time, without major duplication of efforts. Peace :)
Posted by: Roger Pham | Feb 12, 2007 11:10:01 PM
do you not think that why we are being lead down the hydrogen garden path is beacause it is so easy to tax , unlike electricity which would be almost impossible to separate road use from industrial and home use .
But maybe that is too simple . I am sure you have seen" who killed the electric car " in that movie a Toyota fool cell engineer is asked when we might be able to buy this type of car , he replies that it is in he´s opinion, ten years away from reaching the marketplace !this is too late , another ten years of the ICE will be enough to set the planet into terminal decline , I am sorry for all those companys etc that invested large sums of cash and time going down the h2 route , but what we need is a fix now not in ten years , BEV tech is just about there .
There is a company just 3km from my house here in italy making a BEV fiat panda , ok at the moment it is a bit expensive but they are making them by hand in small quantitys and the battery costs a about $12000 per car , but it is an complete unit chargers controllers etc all in one box, it is rated at 20kwh more than enough for a small car . this car has just been tested at the EU reaserch centre here in northern italy and was found to be more than adequate, 120km range ,8hour charge costing here in italy 3 euro , this car is here now all it needs is a major company to make it in large quantitys to get the price down .
I think what we need now are real solutions , not window dressing ,BEV is the only way forward for a quick fix !
Posted by: andrichrose | Feb 13, 2007 1:34:08 AM
If you would produce H2 right at the point of dispensing to end-users, you will be able to overcome the inefficiency of H2 transportation and distribution. Do not use the liquid fuel model to base the Hydrogen economy on.
Maybe he was proposing lots of small high temperature nuclear reactors at gas stations? :)
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Feb 13, 2007 7:02:35 AM
What about water vapour emissions as a GHG?
Others have addressed the issue of water vapor in the troposphere (summary: evaporation/condensation controls the humidity level. and utterly dominates production of water vapor from combustion).
But there's also water in the stratosphere. This comes from both leakage through the 'cold trap' at the tropopause, as well as oxidation of methane in the stratosphere. Hydrogen that persists until it can reach the stratosphere will also add water there. The effect there of greatly increased H2 leakage will have to be quantified.
I would also worry about H2 leakage in the troposphere causing a reduction in hydroxyl radicals, increasing the atmospheric lifetime of methane.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Feb 13, 2007 7:07:56 AM
andrichrose,
There is no telling when or whether batteries will be produced in enough quantity for large-scale PHEV or BEV use. The quickest way to overcome petroleum dependency is to produce synthetic gasoline or diesel fuel to use in current vehicles from waste biomass or coal, as I've just posted. Then, let the consumers later decide whether H2 vehicles will be for them or not.
H2 from biomass or coal gasification will be much cheaper and more energy-efficient to produce than liquid fuel via gasification and then F/T synthesis. H2 may cost 1/2 as much as F/T synthetic product per energy unit. Right now, per DOE website, H2 costs 32 cents per lb, or ~70 cents per kg as gasification product from coal when sold on-site.
Anyone is free to choose which method of propulsion to use, be it liquid fuel, BEV, PHEV, or H2-ICE-HEV, or H2-FC-HEV, depending on his/her internal bias, fear, or suspicion, etc.
I think that we will continue to disagree on this subject, but I hope that the intellectual discussion will be worth the occasional bruise on the ego of being proven wrong once in a while.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Feb 13, 2007 1:41:27 PM
And he's doing it AGAIN! Roger Pham dodges:
The easiest way right now to end petroleum dependency is to gasify biomass and supplementing coal as needed to produce syngas (H2 and CO) and then convert that to liquid fuel products via F/T to power our existing vehicles.
Energy content of US gasoline and distillate consumption: 26.1 quads.
Available biomass energy in the USA: ~2 billion dry tons * 15.8 million BTU/ton = 31.6 quads (you're in trouble right off the bat).
Efficiency of biomass-to-liquids: 38.5% to liquid products, yielding 12.2 quads of liquids (and another 4.0 quads of gases).
12.2/26.1 = 47%. Your "quickest route" won't even get halfway there. It's a road to nowhere. And how much would this half-measure cost us?
You might want to try another line of work, Roger. There are some where the ability to lie is an asset. Talking about energy isn't one of them.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 13, 2007 7:52:17 PM
Easy does it folks. He did say "supplement with coal" (heavily). Still, biomass to liquids doesn't sound any better than biomass to electricity. And then you're going to be burning the liquid fuel in a low efficiency ICE. (To be honest I don't see too many alternatives for transport trucks)
Eng-poet: do you have a number for household socket to wheels efficiency for EVs? I've been working with the Tesla supplied 86%. (probably a bit high) Roger claims as low as 70% (sounds very low)
Posted by: Neil | Feb 13, 2007 9:01:14 PM
So let's use Roger's figure of 70%. If we converted 1.7 billion dry tons of biomass (26.9 quads) to charcoal at 53.5% efficiency and then to electricity in DCFC's at 80%, we'd get 11.5 quads of juice out. 93% transmission and 70% wall-to-wheels yields 7.48 quads. (This ignores the energy yield from the carbonization process.)
The US burns about 17 quads of gasoline in vehicles which average ~15% efficient: 2.85 quads output. 6 quads of diesel at 35% yields 2.1 quads of output. The sum is less than 5 quads, which the biomass-to-DCFC system could supply handily from only 1.7 billion tons (which is 85% of 2 billion tons of biomass which cannot even supply half our motor fuel needs through BTL).
The future of ground transportation is electric.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 13, 2007 9:35:00 PM
I agree with engineer- poet , why go out of the way down some h2 blind avenue , when we are tripping over technology that is almost there , and with a well sorted distribution network . I just guess that over here in europe politicians will have to come up with some more inventive ways to tax us rather than sitting around on there fat behinds waiting for the road fuel taxes to come in .
Posted by: andrichrose | Feb 14, 2007 3:06:04 AM
It isnt so much what fuel thats important as what kind of car that fuel results in.
In the case of biofuels nd gas I think we all can see cafe standards rising through the roof and rather draconian regulations comming into force soonish. The end result a car that sucks to drove but gets you there.
Ev.. if we arevery lucky battery packs will hit 12k in a few years and 4-5k in 5-10 years. Lux ev cars and trucks will likely have 4 or more packs and I xpect at least a few ev suvs with 8 packs luirking silently behind you.
H2 What kinds of cars do h2 systems create? Sports cars. Basicaly everything that needs power beyond what regulated fuels allow but that isnt totaly dependant on a battery. In short eveyrthing else. Wich just so happens to likely include alot of PROFITABLE car lines.
But availablity! If sports cars are basicaly banned from gad and bio then ev and h2 will be thier ownly fuel and yes gas stations will open h2 and ev slots to fuel such cars. Bcause lux and recreational cars are a huge market for gas stations and for car makers.
The question is wich type ev or h2 will dominate that market... or will they jjst share it near 50 50. The car makers hedge there bets by working on plug in hybroid h2 cars a marrage of both and a system able to convert cheaply to either in more or exclusive proportions.
Heck if things go the way I expect we might even see truckstops with pure 100% veg oil pumps.
Posted by: wintermane | Feb 14, 2007 11:13:57 AM
Eng-Poet,
Thanks for reminding us about the very highly efficient DCFC, with an overall efficiency of ~70%. (DCFC cell 80%-overall system 70%). Now please kindly inform us about the cost and availability of DCFC. Surely, something that good and hardly mentioned in the mass media must have some hidden drawback to it? For sure, DCFC must not be portable enough to be put into mobile vehicles, since it is mostly mentioned as stationary electrical generator.
So, for mobile application, you must rely on the battery, which will be years before sufficient number can show up in the automobile fleet. It'll take time to perfect the technology, set up manufacturing plants, gathering the raw material...etc. And there is mention recently that the world's lithium yearly production capacity may not permit a large number of PHEV packs to be built. See : http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?page=article&storyid=1180
Whereas, for BTL supplemented with CTL, current vehicle fleet can now take immediate advantage of this petroleum sustitution. Plan a gradual increase in petroleum tax while keeping tax low on BTL or CTL product will provide commercial incentive to set up gasification and F/T plants. The higher cost of BTL and CTL will encourage more HEV to replace current non-hybrid fleets, and over one or two decade, one can see the efficiency of the automobile jump from 15% to 30% or even higher, if I have my way, to 45% with super-duper H2-burning, direction injection ICE-HEV, or all the way to Honda's exotic FCX with a quoted efficiency of 60%!!! Wow. Now, the DCFC with efficiency of 70% coupled with wall-to-wheel efficiency of BEV will result in 50% efficiency, well, more or less comparable with Honda's exotic FCX technology.
Still, DCFC is an excellent idea for the future, along with biomass carbonification. I hope that you would push this scheme further with GE, GM, DOE, NREL, and all the powers that be! I'm learning new stuffs everyday.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Feb 14, 2007 3:24:57 PM
John Cooper says that the commercial work on DCFC's has been farmed out to Direct Carbon Energy, so you will have to ask them about the current state of the art. Note that Cooper's previous line of research (zinc-air fuel cells) went to Power Air Corporation, which is working with OEM's at this time.
You are correct that DCFC's are better aimed at stationary powerplants (and possibly marine propulsion). This is why I am always talking about batteries. However, DCFC's can do a very good job of eliminating the need for both combustion powerplants and fossil fuels to feed them.
There is about 250 billion tons of recoverable lithium in the oceans. There are other schemes for capturing it. At a high enough price, the amount of terrestrial mineral deposits becomes irrelevant.
Lithium is not a sine qua non for PHEV's and BEV's. There is also sodium nickel chloride (ZEBRA), zinc-air, the two (not one) carbon-backed lead-acid variants and the dark horse, the EEStor ultracap.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 15, 2007 8:33:22 PM
One nice feature of the DCFC, in addition to its extraordinary theoretical efficiency and potentially low capital cost, is that it naturally produces nearly pure CO2 as an output stream without the need for an air separation plant. This will reduce the cost of carbon sequestration.
Posted by: Paul Dietz | Feb 16, 2007 8:45:05 AM
I just wish the blasted aleins would attack already so we could steal power cells and fusion tech from them already! Sheesh lazy damn aliens.
Posted by: wintermane | Feb 16, 2007 8:50:19 AM
Eng-Poet: don't forget the MIT carbon nanotubule enhanced ultracap. (Didn't BASF also apply for a patent in this area?)
Posted by: Neil | Feb 16, 2007 10:05:33 AM
Has anyone thought of using the earth to compress hydrogen? More precisely, what stops a company from running two cables down into the ocean 10,000 feet and supplying the cable with wind powered elecrtricity, thereby producing hydrogen from the ocean at a pressure of 4454 psi. The hydrogen would be collected at depth and piped, at a collection pressure of 4454 psi, up to a surface collection station and further into existing high pressure gas distribution infrastructures.
Posted by: JB | Mar 7, 2007 10:06:52 AM
sorry forgot to complete the email address.
Anyway, what came first the chicken or the egg? Guess what. We found out and before long you will also know.
Posted by: thEarl | May 11, 2007 2:49:05 AM
A lot of rabbling is going on about hydrogen being a viable source for powering internal combustion engines. We have found the solution. Keep tuned to your news and you will find out soon. No fuel cells, no storage tanks, no excess us of electricity, no fossil fuels only 1 liter of distilled water to power a car or truck 600-700 km.
Posted by: thEarl | May 11, 2007 2:54:40 AM
the laws of chemistry and physics did change in the past and they are also changing now. Today!
Posted by: thEarl | May 11, 2007 2:57:38 AM
One question...what will happen with all the water emissions in the air from the hydrogen car? Will it rain all the time because of the water emissions?
Posted by: KAL | May 14, 2007 6:37:07 PM
Kal, the earth needs rain. There is a lot of drought in Europe and Africa. They could use the rain. In any case, the water does not get to the air, it is recirculated and used again.
Posted by: thEarl | May 20, 2007 10:08:18 AM
Don't forget to look into the World Energy Congress that will be held at the new fair in Rome, Italy, 11-15 November 2007. There will be a lot of surprises for everyone with regards to hydrogen. Media is welcome.
Posted by: thEarl | Jun 3, 2007 12:37:24 PM
Don't forget to look into the World Energy Congress that will be held at the new fair in Rome, Italy, 11-15 November 2007. There will be a lot of surprises for everyone with regards to hydrogen. Media is welcome.
Posted by: thEarl | Jun 3, 2007 12:38:15 PM
