Fuel Cell Vehicles to Drive Climate Change

[Wrinkle]

Report by Nat'l Hydrogen Association indicates a future dominated by hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles, solving most of the air issues and making the U.S. energy independent.

Renewable Energy World article provides synopsis, with the full and summary reports available from the following links:

REW Article  http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/05/nha-report-says-hydrogen-vehicles-will-drive-change

NHA Link to Reports http://www.hydrogenassociation.org/general/evolution.asp

=================================================

Much of the whoop-tee-do surrounding hydrogen energy has been shunted in recent years by those contending the infrastructure required to provide a hydrogen energy economy would be too expensive to implement.

While this may be true as it relates to providing a similar infrastructure now in place to provide current fuels, hydrogen can be produced both locally and on the fly if appropriately implemented.

IOW, one could literally fill your "gas" tank with water.

But, more to the point, Fuel Cell development has been ongoing for a couple of decades now and it is my belief these have matured to the point of beneficial use. So, why are they not readily available?

I'm just about ready to suggest they are being intentionally withheld from the marketplace. If so, it's not hard to conjur a scenario where big energy interests, combined with political clout, could be preventing their distribution.

Further, the use of Fuel Cells in automobiles represents the most difficult implementation of this technology, but remains at the forefront of energy policy research efforts and funding.

Stationary Fuel Cells could be providing energy solutions for the broadest catagory of energy used in this county, buildings. Buildings (and the processes within) use 80% of all energy consumed in this country.

Many demonstration projects (mostly military at this point) have proven the effectivenss of Fuel Cell power on a localized, stationary basis, yet these products are not being introduced.

[sauerkraut]

The sad thing is all this alt. fuel is not really needed, we have oil and and we have tons of nat. gas, but we can't use our own resources. We have tons of oil. Alaska is floating on a sea of oil... There is nothing wrong with getting other forms of fuel, but for the near future we will always need oil. Meanwhile the democrats shut down all domestic drilling  and keep us hooked on OPEC. What ever fuel that will be used in cars in the future won't be cheap. It's funny how "going green" is always so expensive, it should in reality be cheaper.

[Cats Cats Cats]

From what I have heard Alaska will get us by for 12 years.  The one major mistake in your thought process is that you believe that for some reason oil that is drilled in the United States is sold to the United States.  This is not the case.

[cannon_fodder]

Hydrogen is really just a storage medium for energy, it is a potential battery, it is NOT an energy source.  It takes more energy to produce or gather hydrogen than a hydrogen generator (be it combustion engine, fuel cell, or otherwise) generates.   The energy required to explore for, drill, pump, refine, and transport a gallon of gasoline gives a HUGE net return on energy, hydrogen fails to provide that.  Currently, the most common means of producing hydrogen is to use coal fired power for electrolysis. 

Hence, it is a battery.

That is not to poo-poo the idea.  With solar, tidal, and wind energy the ability to efficiently store energy is in demand.  If the wind farms could produce hydrogen from water on Lake Keystone when it isn't being used by the grid, that hydrogen could then be converted back into electricity when peak demand strikes.  There would be a net loss of energy, but otherwise the wind energy is not available upon demand (or where demanded). 

The same concept could apply to offshore wind farms, hydro electric dams (which can already store some energy by raising water levels), and solar farms.  The only restriction is the hydrogen farms would have to be near an expendable source of water (won't work well in west Texas, Colorado, Arizona, etc.).  But on a large scale that wouldn't be a real issue as the ocean is readily available with wind, sun, or tides in many locations. An alternative is to construct nuclear facilities near water (always are anyway) to use as the power source to produce the hydrogen.

And another final thought, we could run fewer power plants at the most efficient level of capacity (generally 80%) to produce the hydrogen with excess power.  Thus enabling the plant to operate at it's most efficient, use hydrogen reserves for turbines during peak demand, and sell excess hydrogen for use in transport (or whatever).  It would be a better utilization of existing power plants while cutting down on the use of oil.

Hope to see continued research into hydrogen, but it is a long term solution.  Which doesn't interest many politicians.

[Wrinkle]

The sad thing is all this alt. fuel is not really needed, we have oil and and we have tons of nat. gas, but we can't use our own resources. We have tons of oil. Alaska is floating on a sea of oil... There is nothing wrong with getting other forms of fuel, but for the near future we will always need oil. Meanwhile the democrats shut down all domestic drilling  and keep us hooked on OPEC. What ever fuel that will be used in cars in the future won't be cheap. It's funny how "going green" is always so expensive, it should in reality be cheaper.

"...but for the near future we will always need oil." 

No one's suggesting oil/nat gas isn't going to be needed for quite a while. Change doesn't happen overnight. Technologies fade out/phase in as the marketplace accepts them.  (is this where I mention 8-track tapes or VHS vs Beta?)

What I'm suggesting is the technology is being intentionally withheld, limiting current options.

And, given the choice, use of hydrogen in place of carbon fuels is a no-brainer, particularly when compared with the environment.

As for costs, I agree completely. Green should also be cheaper. However, right now, all things green are at a premium. Some of that is marketplace. Most of it is marketing.

[Wrinkle]

Right now, the available products in the Fuel Cell category include in-box hydrogen converters such that they require connection to standard utility (i.e., natural gas, methane, fuel oil) sources to operate.

These are termed "backup energy" supply for periodic outage control and emergency situations. As such, they sell for enormous cost and are used primarily in remote installations and hospitals.

The technology is there.

As for hydrogen being a 'storage' mechanism, while true, the same can be said of any fuel including oil or natural gas. Intermediates would be a more appropriate term.

The production of hydrogen can be facilitated locally (i.e., 'distributed processing') which makes the need for centralized plants minimal (not unnecessary). It can (is) be produced on-demand rather than stored at all. Though, having a certain amount of storage is desireable for flow interruptions.

It's not hard to imagine each dwelling unit producing their own hydrogen needs, being sustainable and free of public utilities.

Which is the rub.

[sauerkraut]

From what I have heard Alaska will get us by for 12 years.  The one major mistake in your thought process is that you believe that for some reason oil that is drilled in the United States is sold to the United States.  This is not the case.

Where did ya get that info from? The enviromental groups? We have 800 BILLION barrels of recoverable oil in the oil shale rock in Wyoming & Colorado alone. Alaska is floating on a sea of oil, not to mention off shore oil drilling. We have more oil than Saudia Aribia and their oil lasted longer than 12 years. The biggest thing we have is natural gas under the Gulf Of Mexico, we have enough nat. gas to last 600+years. Nat. gas is never much talked about today I wonder why? it burns clean, it's cheap, it's plentyful and we don't need radical changes in our cars the standard engine can burn it. Diesel and 2-cycle engines also should be looked into. Obama closed 640 acres of oil rich drilling land in Utah in his first day in office.

[cannon_fodder]

Wrinkle,

You fail to account for the fact that you need MORE energy input than you get out from hydrogen.  Coal, oil and gas are enormous SOURCES of energy.  We can create oil in a laboratory, but it is not cost effective to do so as it requires more energy to create the product than the product is worth.  Which is akin to creating hydrogen.  

Oil is, of course, stored energy (coal, gas, take your pick).  But we didn't have to input the energy.  The energy is free, we just need to take it.  We need to input the energy into hydrogen before we can extract it . . . just like a battery.

That is a significant difference.

To go along with the above point:  yes, hydrogen can be produced anywhere.  The problem there is a lack of efficiency.  If you are producing locally (as in per neighborhood, per house, whatever) then you have huge inefficiencies in electrical production, transmission (of the electricity and the pumping of whatever water is utilized), hydrogen production, and of course whatever efficiency loss there is in utilizing that hydrogen.  Then you need to add the cost of production equipment in each unit and a method to compress and store the hydrogen in each unit.  Hence, a centralized production system similar to power generation - but more location specific, would make much more sense.

Each dwelling unit would need it's own power source and water source to produce it's own hydrogen.  The inefficiencies in that system would likely be staggering.  If you postulate each dwelling unit creating their own power required to generate hydrogen (we will ignore the water) we introduce more inefficiencies as home power production by itself is not as efficient as central production and transmission.  And even it it were efficient, why would be it a better use of that power to create hydrogen as opposed to feeding the grid?

Unless, to digress a bit, we are under a model similar to the one suggested in my initial post.  Excess capacity being used to generate hydrogen.  Which brings us back to the central production being more efficient.

I think the required energy input of people into hydrogen is an important distinction between hydrogen as a fuel source and "fossil fuels."  The energy input required in addition to water, compression and storage requirements presents additional issues for micro generation of a hydrogen supply.  Hence, it seems that the centralized production model I suggested remains the best option.

[sauerkraut]

Right now, the available products in the Fuel Cell category include in-box hydrogen converters such that they require connection to standard utility (i.e., natural gas, methane, fuel oil) sources to operate.

These are termed "backup energy" supply for periodic outage control and emergency situations. As such, they sell for enormous cost and are used primarily in remote installations and hospitals.

The technology is there.

As for hydrogen being a 'storage' mechanism, while true, the same can be said of any fuel including oil or natural gas. Intermediates would be a more appropriate term.

The production of hydrogen can be facilitated locally (i.e., 'distributed processing') which makes the need for centralized plants minimal (not unnecessary). It can (is) be produced on-demand rather than stored at all. Though, having a certain amount of storage is desireable for flow interruptions.

It's not hard to imagine each dwelling unit producing their own hydrogen needs, being sustainable and free of public utilities.

Which is the rub.

They said in the 1950's when Nuclear Power Plants came on line that electric will be so cheap we could use all we want for just pennies. That never came to be. In Europe they use alot more Nuclear Power than we do in the USA. France has tons of Nuclear Power Plants, that would be the best way to go IMO... Enviromental regs bog down the building of the Nuclear power plants  and then the costs sore so high that it's not worth going nuke. That nuke cost gets passed along in our electric bills when a new plant is built. That "Cap & Trade" that the democrats want to push will make our electric bills skyrocket by around 70 percent. Obama favors high electric bills because it will force people to use less.

[Wrinkle]

CF, while I do not disagree with you necessarily, the key would be the production of hydrogen and the technique employed. Also, a strategy for storage which compliments the needs, timing and availability. So, your off-time wind turbine use for hydrogen production makes sense in that respect as well. However, any form of electrolysis or heat seperation of hydrogen requires up to four times the energy to produce than it generates. This would be similar in efficiency to a hydro project production of electricity trying to re-pump the fallen water to the top to recycle. It only works if the demand is there, or, stated as useful only if the energy would normally otherwise be discarded, such as lost wind.

Other than electrolysis and furnance separation (which tend to be inefficient compared to other currently used fuels), newer methods of hydrogen generation would provide what I'll just call "natural" hydrogen. One such possibility is via biological plants which vent pure hydrogen (demostrated) and could be grown in your home garden or on your roof, capturing the vented hydrogen and pushing it directly to use in a fuel cell or compressing it into storage or a vehicle. Capacities come largely into play here. If it takes four acres of plants to produce 1 ltr of hydrogen per hour, then it doesn't make sense.

The key would be hydrogen production efficiency. On that, we can say there's not so much focus in research budgets today.

[Wrinkle]

My dad was a Natural Gas Engineer for one of the majors.

I distinctly remember him telling us kids that some day, nuclear energy would make electricity so cheap they couldn't sell it.

At the time, I also recall natural gas being primarily a waste by-product of oil production and regularly burned off on site as such. Many sites still do that today. Most times, not all, it's either an oil well or a gas well, not both.

Some suggest energy independence means not importing foreign oil. To me, it means no utility bill. But, I'll definitely settle for domestic independence. Since ALL oil currently goes directly into a World Market system, there's a lot more to change than just drilling.

[Wrinkle]

BTW, just to stir the thread, there's some credible evidence now that oil itself is a renewable source. The old addage of it coming from the remains of dinasours and old vegetation is pretty much history today.

In fact, Russian energy specialists tend adopt a state policy of oil being renewable.

Even if 'Peak Oil' is not a fraud, there's more than likely many, many years of it available yet. As someone else stated, we have more available in North America than Saudi Arabia, most of which remains untapped. I call it the "Use Their's First" policy.

[nathanm]

Where did ya get that info from? The enviromental groups? We have 800 BILLION barrels of recoverable oil in the oil shale rock in Wyoming & Colorado alone.

You just can't grasp the concepts of a) only being able to extract some of our oil reserves and b) the limited flow rate of an oil field, can you?

Additionally, oil shale and tar sands are mostly worthless without a better primary source of energy, as it takes vast amounts of energy to convert to usable oil.

However, I do agree with your point about nuclear energy.

And Wrinkle, even if oil does somehow 'regenerate' or whatever they call it, it's obviously not happening at a rate that meets demand, although I have yet to see any credible evidence of biotic oil.

What really annoys me about our inability to wean ourselves off oil as a fuel is that if we keep doing what we're doing, it won't be around for us to make plastics and other neat things from later. Burning it is an egregious waste of such a useful substance.

[cannon_fodder]

Thanks Wrinkle. 

I was under the impression that the more efficient ways to produce hydrogen could not, or have not been scaled up to a useful level.  Is there ongoing research or recent advancements in this area?  I readily admit that I was unaware if it had progressed past the laboratory stage.

Otherwise, I agree.  It is the efficient production that is at issue.

[Wrinkle]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080825195852.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/29/MN76411.DTL&type=printable


Another variation of the lost wind concept using desalinization plants:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/29/MN76411.DTL&type=printable

And, we cannot forget, hydrogen is a byproduct of pure oxygen production, too.

Here's a bio-reactor for hydrogen production:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_hydrogen_production