« Enova and Wrightbus Partner to Deliver 6 Additional Diesel Hybrid Buses to London | Main | Odyne and Dueco Introduce Plug-in Hybrid Aerial Lift Truck »
California Setting Limits on State Funding for Hydrogen Production and Use Based on Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Profile
17 October 2007
 |
| WTW GHG emissions of select hydrogen production pathways (CO2-equivalent g/mi). The dotted red line represents the gasoline fuel baseline. Under AB 809, the average hydrogen powered vehicle would need to be 30% below the baseline. GHG emissions via electrolysis in California are lower than the national average in the chart due to California’s mix of power generation. Click to enlarge. Source: Argonne, GM |
Among a plethora of energy bills signed into law by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger last week was AB 809—a bill that sets limits on state funding for the production and use of hydrogen fuel for vehicles that is based on the well-to-wheels greenhouse gas profile of the vehicles using the hydrogen.
AB 809 mandates the development and adoption of hydrogen fuel regulations to ensure that state funding for the production and use of hydrogen fuel, as described in the California Hydrogen Highway Blueprint Plan, contributes to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, criteria air pollutant emissions, and toxic air contaminant emissions.
Even though hydrogen vehicles are, when operating (tank-to-wheels), zero emission vehicles, the method used to produce the hydrogen can drive up the overall greenhouse gas profile well past the average WTW baseline for a gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine vehicle. A comprehensive well-to-wheels analysis performed by Argonne National Laboratory and General Motors highlights the various outcomes of a large number of fuel production pathways and powertrain combinations.
At a minimum, the regulations must:
Require that, on a statewide basis, well-to-wheel (WTW) emissions of greenhouse gases for the average hydrogen powered vehicle fueled by hydrogen from fueling stations that receive state funds are at least 30% lower than emissions for the average new gasoline vehicle in California when measured on a per-mile basis.
Require that, on a statewide basis, no less than 33.3% of the hydrogen produced for, or dispensed by, fueling stations that receive state funds be made from eligible renewable energy resources. If the state board determines that there is insufficient availability of hydrogen fuel from eligible renewable resources to meet the 33.3% requirement, the state board may, after at least one public workshop and on a one-time basis, reduce the requirement by an amount not to exceed 10 percentage points. If the executive officer of the state board determines that it is not feasible for a public transit operator to use hydrogen fuel made from eligible renewable resources, the executive officer may exempt the operator from the requirements for a period of not more than five years and may extend the exemption for up to five additional years.
Require that all hydrogen fuel dispensed from fueling stations that receive state funds be generated in a manner so that local well-to-tank emissions of nitrogen oxides plus reactive organic gases are at least 50% lower than well-to-tank emissions of the average motor gasoline sold in California when measured on an energy equivalent basis.
Require that providers of hydrogen fuel for transportation in the state report to the state board the annual mass of hydrogen fuel dispensed and the method by which the dispensed hydrogen was produced and delivered.
Resources:
Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle Systems—A North American Study of Energy Use, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Criteria Pollutant Emissions (Argonne, GM; 2005)
October 17, 2007 in Climate Change, Hydrogen Production, Policy | Permalink | Comments (19) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/22523416
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference California Setting Limits on State Funding for Hydrogen Production and Use Based on Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Profile:
Comments
OMG!!! At least one State understands the Hydrogen Scam!
Posted by: DS | Oct 17, 2007 8:20:54 AM
[quote=ds]OMG!!! At least one State understands the Hydrogen Scam![/quote]
Yet they are the that instituted the hydrogen highway project. At least they are being responsible about supporting an alternative fuel source/energy medium. Could be like Bush that pushes alternative fuels and results in automakers making E85 vehicles that side step CAFE rules.
Posted by: Jason | Oct 17, 2007 9:49:18 AM
Besides which,
A 30% reduction in CO2 isn't that much.
Diesels, Hybrids, and HCCI Engines get better than that.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars3.png
Or even a coal powered electric car. (Coal Electric = Hybrid)
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3
_
All this law is saying is that grid electrolysis is practically off the table.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
Onsite reformation of natural gas, still on the table.
But practically no greener than merely burning the natural gas in the first place.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars3.png
_
And while it could be renewable electric, that would require 3-4x more renewable power stations than driving electric, and be 3-4x less green than if it was renewable electric drive.
http://greyfalcon.net/h2illusion.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
Posted by: GreyFlcn | Oct 17, 2007 9:58:15 AM
Hmm. That graph is full of unknown abbreviations. Wish there would be at least a legend to tell me what all the terms are. Can guess but shouldn't have to and looking it up in the document, at least give me the page number.
At least it shows some thought to where tax dollars should go. Without this, car manufacturers would have an easier time just making CO2 someone elses problem. At least this way, state funds help out only those stations that reduce overall CO2 production. Frankly though, until costs come down significantly, the future for H2 cars is fairly well into the future and I don't think that they will play an immediate role. A role that needs to be filled as soon as possible.
Posted by: aym | Oct 17, 2007 11:10:56 AM
Interesting! California appears to be miles ahead of the Federal government (more ethanol anyone? Hic!) on this one.
I say Schwarzenegger for president!
Posted by: Engineer | Oct 17, 2007 11:25:42 AM
I hope this gets implimented real soon. I also hope California builds 75 new nuclear plants next year.
Government needs to get out of the way and stop wasting paper.
Posted by: Vangineer | Oct 17, 2007 11:42:02 AM
if you produce H2 out of H2O and biomass using the water-gas-shift reaction, combined with carbon sequestration, you can make lots of H2 while cleaning the air from CO2. This is a lot 'cleaner' than full-electric cars, since it actually cleans the air (which is much better than carbon-neutral)
Posted by: | Oct 17, 2007 12:48:04 PM
“Could be like Bush that pushes alternative fuels and results in automakers making E85 vehicles that side step CAFE rules.”
E85 loophole originates from US Congress Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988, when even Bush senior was year away from White House.
The only Bush junior connection to the E85 loophole is his executive order requiring that federal flex-fuel fleet should use E85 fuel 100% of the time.
It is not like I defend Bush or something. I just tired to read same political crap smuggled into this supposedly technical web blog over and over again.
Posted by: Andrey | Oct 17, 2007 5:25:21 PM
E85 loophole originates from US Congress Alternative Motor Fuels Act of 1988, when even Bush senior was year away from White House.
The only Bush junior connection to the E85 loophole is his executive order requiring that federal flex-fuel fleet should use E85 fuel 100% of the time.
It is not like I defend Bush or something. I just tired to read same political crap smuggled into this supposedly technical web blog over and over again.
Bullshit. It was extended in 2004 and Bush signed it. Do your homework before shooting off your partisan mouth, warming-denier.
Posted by: jack | Oct 17, 2007 5:38:35 PM
@Jack,
Chill. Lots of reasons to legitimately despise Bush's damage to efficiency, sustainability, and cleaner energy.
The forum works best when we focus on the issues and don't take things personally.
Now how do we get more Schwarzenagars and Al Gores prevailing on national energy and environmental policies?
Posted by: HealthyBreeze | Oct 17, 2007 7:28:43 PM
The forum works best when we focus on the issues and don't take things personally.
Maybe if people didn't inflame discussions with things like "tired to read same political crap smuggled into this supposedly technical web blog over and over again" then they wouldn't get the responses they get. Andrey "smuggles in" political crap about as much as anyone here with his constant clmate change denial nonsense, and that particular comment above is snarky political crap to boot. Bush extended the thing, so he very much is part of it. Anyone who tries to lie about it and has the gall to think they're "correcting the record" isn't here to make things work best, as you say.
Now how do we get more Schwarzenagars and Al Gores prevailing on national energy and environmental policies?
The former takes that stand because of the peculiarity of being a Republican leader of a progressive state. The latter already gave a go of it and environmental issues were essentially a non-issue during his 2000 campaign. Even with the prominence of the issues now (and the somewhat unfortunate overemphasis on climate change to the exclusion of other environmental issues), I really don't see voters having much real concern for these things other than tangentially, eg, as related to punitively expensive energy.
Plus, the regional screwiness of the system - from the various states and economic interests who will push for ethanol, to the coal-heavy states (including Obama's Illinois) that push coal, to the nuclear folks, to both the domestic and foreign oil and gas interests getting their claws into things, I really don't know how one gets at these things in a way that's actually both going to be effective and be equitable/affordable.
It seems that the best ideas wouldn't stand a chance politically.
There's some fundamental rearrangements that need to happen, one way or another.
Posted by: jack | Oct 17, 2007 7:55:36 PM
one last note...Pray tell me why the Polar Caps on Mars and also all Planets in our Solar System[including the outermost] are warming......on CO2???? funny thing...Plants need C02 needs CO2 to live/grow.....and why this forum is very unscientific....from a former man of science and engineering.....oh the answer??? Proof of this was discovered by NASA in 2003...an influx of Gamma Radiation which is causing our Sun to be more active.....further scientific study is needed in this forum for it to be non partisan....so far you guys fail the grading system of Academia...better luck in the future......
Posted by: TomBadger | Oct 18, 2007 8:18:33 AM
Pray tell me...
Chances are any silly objection you have has already been addressed at realclimate.org, including the Mars one.
Plants need C02 needs CO2 to live/grow
Hey everyone - we have an advanced biologist here! Who knew that plants need CO2? I certainly didn't!
Thanks for opening our eyes, Badger!
Posted by: jack | Oct 18, 2007 8:55:40 AM
Perhaps reading the truth about the Sun would help.
According to the raw data the solar activity has been declining for a few decades.
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html
Posted by: Curtis | Oct 18, 2007 9:00:23 AM
OK, so I was not clear in my statement. Bush didn't start/enact/etc. the E85 program. He did however make it part of his SOTU address. Flex fuel vehicle have since gone from relative obscurity to big splashy tv adds. Also there is an expanded (I think) activity in building and running ethanol production plants.
I'll admit that I thought ethanol was a good idea, until I saw how the system got screwed. :(
Posted by: Jason | Oct 18, 2007 3:51:39 PM
Jason:
My apology for being rude.
There is mighty lobby backing corn ethanol, and another lobby backing E85 loophole. Bush role in this issue is quite minuscule. In summer 2006 he proposed to Congress to eliminate import tariff for Brazil sugar cane ethanol, which was summarily dismissed. I believe that he was not serious about it. Nevertheless, it triggered short-lived panic in ethanol stocks. He also signed technology co-operation agreement on ethanol with Brazil and couple of Central America countries.
Generally, corn ethanol is not that bad, up to 5-7% of crude oil substitution. Take a look at report of corn ethanol association, it worth consideration:
http://www.ncga.com/news/OurView/pdf/2006/FoodANDFuel.pdf
Posted by: Andrey | Oct 18, 2007 10:56:32 PM
Bush role in this issue is quite minuscule.
Do you need to make a minimum of one apologist comment per day to make quota? Are you commission-based or straight salary?
Posted by: jack | Oct 18, 2007 11:24:10 PM
Well - i'm afraid it all drives home the real solution. Lifestyle, conservation and other sustainable patterns of behavior. (Equals a very boring approach - not a very humanly characteristic)
Hydrogen is pretty false - attractive to people who don't understand (or more likely care not to) the technology in play - but ultimately politically motivated and backed. Aside - More hydrogen production certainly won't hurt oil sands production - but hey thats my theory.
It hasn't been a secret that hydrogen is hard to make, store, transport, safely contain on a car and convert to energy - without it representing a net efficiency loss - I guess we all just need another moon landing. Why not - it's as much of an existential question as anything else.
So .. short of living close to work, driving more conservative vehicles and otherwise chilling out as a whole, we are just going to have to ride this one out and let the pretty people pose. I am glad California decided to finally bring some balance to the table. I suppose a public perception of "now hydrogen bad" will make it harder to all of us but hey - it's time for a new free energy scam anyway. This one is stale.
Posted by: Jerk | Oct 20, 2007 8:09:09 PM
Have you heard of the much needed energy bill that Congress is working on passing. It contains two major history-changing provisions (a fuel economy standard of 35 mpg and a renewable electricity standard of 15%) that would end our Nation's security-threatening dependence on Middle East oil, stop our money from flowing to terrorists, and keep our dollars at home growing the American economy. But lobbyists are working hard to tear the bill apart.
This coalition is making sure the energy bill doesn't get derailed. This electric bill need your help in solidfying that the final bill makes America stronger and more secure. Go to http://www.energybill2007.org and sign our petition. Tell Congress: don't back down.
Posted by: kwolph | Oct 21, 2007 8:13:04 PM
