-
1
11/20/09 | Report as spam
Cheap Hydrogen would be great, but only if made from water...
and preferably sea water! Short of mining the polar ice caps, using fresh water would be much like growing corn for fuel.
Perhaps space/weight is a consideration for not using ammonia as a fuel, but if it can be burned directly then why take the step to convert to hydrogen? But I can't see any reason to convert natural gas when it can be compressed and burned just like hydrogen.
On green jobs, cost is always an issue. Green energy will probably require a higher capital to labor ratio than current energy sources. This mean either fewer workers or lower pay. Add to this that those coal miners probably won't be offered jobs to produce the new energy and its easy to understand the resistance to change.
Hydrogen will be great when we are ready, I just don't see it yet. When it is the government won't need to push it.
-
2
11/21/09 | Report as spam
Can't we at least equalize?
Right now our tax laws have a ton of incentives for carbon energy. What is wrong with just equalizing things?
And if you're going to wait for hydrogen to prove itself, you'll be buying the technology from Germany and China.
Finally brackish, polluted water makes as good a feed stock as sea water.
-
3
11/23/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
if this works out.this wud be just grrreat!
AdamHart
http://www.isopurewater.com/
-
4
11/23/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
Most hydrogen today is made from natural gas in a process that's efficient and cost effective. When used in a fuel cell vehicle, the well-to-wheels GHG emissions are cut by 50% compared to a gasoline vehicle. We certainly need to produce zero-carbon H2 in quanities from water, biogas and biomass, but we can't let perfect stand in the way of good.
Chris White
California Fuel Cell Partnership
www.cafcp.org
-
5
11/23/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
It's been 47 years since I studied chemistry but, at least at that time, electrolysis of salt (sodium chloride) water produces hydrogen, chlorine and sodium hydroxide. Substituting sea water for salt water mostly just increases the variety of hydroxides produced. This is called a chlor-alkali process commercially and is usually done using brine from salt wells because it is too expensive to transport sea water inland.
If your goal is to produce hydrogen, then you need a means of using or disposing of the toxic byproducts of this process.
If you are worried about depleting our supply of fresh water, your worries are misplaced. Burning hydrogen in an internal combustion engine or using it to power fuel cells produces clean water vapor that will be returned to the earth as rain or other forms of precioitation. The natural water cycle will maintain the balance of fresh and salt water on the earth.
-
6
11/23/09 | Report as spam
Silly technology
More Nuclear power.
New Electric grid
Battery Power
Batteries with the energy density of gasoline (within ten years)
Small number of parts. Highly reliable, quiet, clean, generated
from steam, and decay of elements that would decay anyway,
and which can be refined indefinitely.
No explosions, just the winding and unwinding of space-time.
-
7
11/23/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
Quoting the QSI correspondent:
"The current cost of anhydrous ammonia is $250/ton and as a hydrogen source (17.6%) the cost is $1.58 Kg/H2. A kilogram of hydrogen is roughly equal in energy to a gallon of gasoline so that is half the current cost of gas at our local pumps."
I don't understand the above arithmetic, particularly, what does the ratio $1.58 Kg/H2 express?
Dana Blankenhorn's correspondent from QSI confuses me further by stating that a Kg of hydrogen is the energy equivalent (roughly) of a gallon of gasoline. I think it would have been more straightforward
if written: 3.7 gallons of liquid hydrogen = 1 gallon of gasoline.
Why confuse us by referring to gallons of gasoline, but kilograms of hydrogen? The energy density (by volume) of gasoline is greater than that of liquid hydrogen.
Energy density can be expressed per unit of volume or unit of mass.
The energy desnity of gasoline is 2x greater than anhydrous ammonia.
One neat feature of gasoline is that 1 gallon of the stuff has more hydrogen than a gallon of liquid hydrogen (this is also true of ammonia). And it's a lot easier to handle. The infrastructure for transporting and storing gasoline is already in place and it reaches every corner of our nation. If the objective is to use hydrogen as a fuel, perhaps scientists should be working on a means of separating hydrogen from gasoline.
The infrastructure for transporting water is even better--it comes right into my house for a small fee. Occasionaly, it falls from the sky at absolutely no charge. But nobody talks about the energy density of water simply because water is an efficient way of delivering hydrogen.
-
8
11/23/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
1) use of natural gas to extract hydrogen is still being dependant upon fossil fuel.
2) The government has yet to determine a way to tax the controlled dispersement of hydrogen considering there are thousands doing it in their own garage.
3) with the proper design's and energy displacement methods, salt water of any type would not be required.
-
9
11/23/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
The problem with hydrogen is that all the hydrogen in the world is happily married to some other element. In the case of water it's oxygen. Separating the hydrogen out so it can be burned and re-united with oxygen is silly. You are essentially running the auto on electricity with a loss of efficiency due to the conversion process. If the electricity is made from coal you are running the auto on coal. If nuclear - uranium, etc. Eco-friendly hydrogen production by electrolysis could only be done with hydro power.
Another issue with hydrogen is it's low energy level per atom. Hydrogen has a valance of 1, meaning it can only make one bond per atom. Carbon has a valance of 12. When an atom of carbon is united with oxygen much more energy is produced. More carbon equals more power which is why diesel vehicles get better mileage than gasoline ones. (There is more carbon in the diesel fuel.) Of course storage and safety are also huge barriers to the use of hydrogen.
Lawyers in congress and journalists are not qualified to judge CO2. If you know anything about science you know CO2 is the safest thing we could emit from a tailpipe. CO2 is absorbed by all green plants and converted to oxygen in a process called photosynthesis. Besides, burning of fossil fuels is not the largest source of CO2. Leaves and dead wood laying in the forests are carbon-based and as they rot, (oxidize), they emit CO2. Our dairy and beef herds exhale CO2. ALL animals exhale CO2 including humans. One volcano can emit more CO2 in a day than the worlds auto fleet could in 10 years! CO2 is an inert, non-toxic gas. It is used in many industrial processes like welding and those CO2 fire extinguishers can really cool a six pack!
So I encourage you to look at CO2 as your friend and not some deadly gas. It's not the cause of global warming and, in fact, it's doubtful that global warming is even happening. The last 10 years have been a cooling cycle.
-
10
11/23/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
I'm never in favor of the US Government increasing it's tax on it's citizens for any reason.
QSI is on to something, business should invest in it.
-
11
11/23/09 | Report as spam
DCMartin
Thanks for writing. I used a quote from QSI without changing it to make it consistent. Of course you're right on your figures.
Which is why ammonia is so popular. It's denser. Because it's a liquid.
-
12
11/23/09 | Report as spam
CaFCPChris
It is silly to use natural gas to create fuel when natural gas is already fuel.
The problem is natural gas is carbon based, thus resulting in carbon dioxide pollution.
It's not good, let alone perfect. Incentives need to push what is new, different, and better, not what's the same.
-
13
11/23/09 | Report as spam
coulter@...
You're arguing against a really massive scientific consensus there, and arguing despite growing evidence all around you that not only are you wrong but the results of your being wrong are global and catastrophic.
Been to the Arctic or Antarctic lately? Once those ice caps are gone we lose all control over climate. Ice takes a lot of calories to become water, but not that much more to become hot water.
-
14
11/23/09 | Report as spam
rpjacobsen
Have you looked at the tax code lately? Or government spending?
Do you have any idea how many billions upon billions of dollars are either going untaxed or spent so we can get more fossil fuel?
All I'm arguing for is a change in priority. Equalize the treatment. Get rid of the fossil fuel incentives and charge them for their CO2.
That way we can have the kind of growth the rest of the world is tarting to get, the kind Germany and China are starting to get.
-
15
11/23/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
I think this whole hydrogen business is a cult of sorts. I get the impression that there are a lot of people who see hydrogen as the feminist mother earth good element, the element of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi. Carbon on the other hand, is seen as the bad element, the element of George W. Bush and General Motors and Ronald Reagan, i.e. the antithesis of all that is politically correct and good.
The fact, as I see it, is this: Hydrogen is at best an energy carrier, not an energy resource. To advocate hydrogen on the basis that hydrogen as H2O is everywhere, is as meaningless as saying that electrons are everywhere. Electricity too, is an energy carrier. As I see it, biofuels like ethanol or methane from anaerobic digestion of animal leavings, are no less natural (and even MORE natural) than hydrogen.
Is hydrogen safe? I realize that H2 rises quickly, unlike gasoline which puddles and forms explosive vapors. But to get decent range in fuel cell-powered cars, we're looking at storage pressures of 5000 pounds per square inch or more. I'm not comfortable with that.
So while hydrogen may appeal to purists, I'm frankly not impressed by the hydrogen cult.
-
16
11/23/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
Any warming is the result of solar activity NOT CO2. If we were making CO2 faster than photosynthesis could convert it back to Oxygen then oxygen levels would be dropping. This is not the case.
-
17
11/23/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
Vote no on Cap and Trade or I and others will vote to hand you your hat and trade you in for another politician who will represent our interests! America cannot afford anymore bad decisions by the greedy, short sighted children in charge!
The real reason Cap & Trade is being foisted on the world is it creates a 3 trillion dollar commodity market for you guessed it: hot air. Finally politicians have found a way to put a price on their most abundant resource! And for politicians there is no downside as nothing has to be actually produced.
The real beneficiaries are the rich special interest who will get wealthier setting up and trading in this new commodities market. But citizens will pay more taxes to operate new regulatory bureaucracies and more for goods as business passes the cost along.
And all this is based on the premise that operating automobiles is resulting in global warming. Question: did Fred Flintstone?s truck fleet cause the last period of global warming or is global warming a cyclical event that is more affected by sun spot cycles. The Earth has had multiple tropical and glacial ages over the millennia. The most recent news is that the oceans of the world will be cooling for the next 25-30 years.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that the most prevalent hot house gas is water vapor. Should citizens of earth try to stop the rain cycle?
And if we are going to implement Cap and Trade who will decide what the optimal CO2 carrying capacity of Earth is?
And there are questions about how to implement financial controls and reliably audit such a system. Will every person and business on the planet be issued C02 permits? Is the permit an asset a business can liquidate when it goes out of business? If a business in California goes out of business and sells its CO2 permit to a company in England, will a new company in California have to find another seller to open his business and replace lost jobs? After all, if there is an optimal CO2 carrying capacity then an increasing population of people and businesses means a lower standard of living and reduced CO2 allotment for each new person or business.
Upon their death can Mom and Dad leave their CO2 permits to their children? Should Mom and Dad be limited to having two children?
What about the countries that do not subscribe to Cap & Trade. Will multi-national companies export new construction and jobs to 3rd world non-subscribing countries? And the flipside, will the people of the Amazon miss out on new opportunities because an American company bought 1000s of acres to be left unused to acquire carbon sequestration credits.
I am against Cap and Trade in the best of times but it is national suicide to consider implementing this costly new program when America's economy is teetering on the brink! The only Cap and Trade I will vote for is handing their Caps to politicians who vote yes on the issue and trading them in for new representatives!
Germany fought WWII with gasoline made from coal. It is proven technology developed in 1917.
America is the Saudi Arabia of coal with 1/4th of the deposits on the planet. The US could eliminate American dependence on foreign oil.
And reducing America?s trade imbalance would keep money, technology and jobs here in America. It is estimated that every billion in trade deficit equals 13,000 US jobs lost. And we could quit sending billions to countries that sponsor terrorism.
But coal is rich in CO2. Isn?t the timing interesting? The world is in recession, US unemployment figures are hovering around 10% and the EPA determines CO2 is a pollutant that must be regulated.
SO WHO BENEFITS FROM CAP AND TRADE AND KEEPING AMERICAN COAL IN THE GROUND:
The United States agreed to transfer jobs and technology to developing countries under INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT Algiers Declaration Algiers, Algeria, 4-6 March 1975
In this context, they emphasize the necessity for the full implementation of the Programme of Action adopted by the United Nations General Assembly at its VI Special Session, and accordingly they emphasize the following requirements [excerpt from full declaration]
"With regard to the depletable natural resources, as OPEC?s petroleum resources are, it is essential that the transfer of technology must be commensurate in speed and volume with the rate of their depletion, which is being accelerated for the benefit and growth of the economies of the developed countries"
A major portion of the planned or new petrochemical complexes, oil refineries and fertilizer plants be built in the territories of OPEC Member Countries with the co-operation of industrialized nations for export purposes to the developed countries with guaranteed access for such products to the markets of these countries. [Excerpt from declaration] Read sections 10 and 11]
-
18
11/23/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
Lewis 2005, I'm with you.And guess who owns a big piece of the commodity clearing house set up to handle the carbon credit trading? None other than Al Gore. He stands to make millions from this deal. Consider all the carbon that has been combined with oxygen since the industrial revolution. Billions of barells of oil, billions of tons of coal, millions of acres of forests consumed in fires, plus all other sources of CO2. How can there be any oxygen left?? Yet oxygen levels have not dropped.
-
19
11/23/09 | Report as spam
Are you guys real?
So it's coincidental that hurricanes are growing stronger, that the ice caps are melting, that the sea levels are rising? It's all a conspiracy by Al Gore to make money?
Really?
But you're going to stop it and make America dominant in hydrocarbons again.
It's sad. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. It's also a delusion right here at SmartPlanet.
Unfortunately your delusions are killing my grandchildren, so I can't take the risks you propose.
I go with science.
-
20
11/23/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
Dana,
I think your "science" is limited to "media science". Get out your high school chemistry and biology books and do some thinking for yourself. Using energy to produce hydrogen for use as energy is a net negative. That is, it takes more energy to produce than it yields. Get over it.
Now for the biology. Are you aware of photosynthesis? If you are going to campaign for something go for green space. Fill your living space with plants and you will be amazed how much better you feel and how much clearer you think. You may even come to the realization of how silly it is to produce and distribute hydrogen as a fuel.
-
21
11/24/09 | Report as spam
Hurricanes growing stronger...really?
As someone that had Ike go right through my former beach house I am confident in saying that hurricanes are no worse today than in the past 40 years. However if one hits your neighborhood you will consider it a bad day. One bad day does not make a trend.
The logic that a warmer earth could create more hurricanes also seems far fetched. These storms work by equalizing differences in temperature. If there is less cold air then hurricanes should be weaker.
I can't say with any confidence whether the ice caps are melting any faster than in the past but I think its safe to say that Al Gore is making money on his words. That sounds more like marketing than science.
I like the idea of fuel cell tech but like all tech it has to be affordable otherwise its just a fad. We rushed to ethanol and drove up the price of gasoline and food. Its good that hydrogen burns clean but the hidden costs are the source materials and the energy needed to produce it. As noted above most sources of energy will have their own carbon footprint. The energy lost during conversion to hydrogen will probably cause more CO2 production than using conventional fuels directly.
-
22
11/24/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
It amazes me just how many comments here supposedly talking about
hydrogen are in fact to do with people in denial of global warming.
To these ignorant and scared individuals can I just say - don't
leave irrelevant commentary here - the subject is 'What is holding
back hydrogen energy?'
As for hydrogen, MDI has shown that compressed air technology is a
completely viable alternative. But hydrogen is a more volatile gas
from which we can extract greater energy, so its commercial
production will be pursued and will happen. I for one fail to see
why photo voltaic solar arrays mounted at sea, coupled with
harnessed waver power, cannot produce as much hydrogen as we need,
essentially for free after set up costs. This can happen now using
current technologies. What is sadly lacking and is never addressed
is the government will to make such projects become a reality.
-
23
11/25/09 | Report as spam
cjcronin, you are right!
Hydrogen energy should not be thought of as an energy source but, more like a battery that requires an energy source to charge. The problem with many green energy sources is that they are opportunistic. Solar cells don?t produce power at night and wind turbines don?t produce energy on calm days without wind. However, if these energy sources can be harnessed and are able to produce excess energy that can be stored, then it becomes an issue of the most efficient method of storage and hydrogen begins to make sense.
The use of natural gas to produce hydrogen seems contrary to the whole idea of using alternative energy sources to achieve several worthwhile efforts, regardless if global warming exists or not. Some of these ideas are to:
1. Reduce the dependence on foreign oil sources.
2. Preserve and extend the availability of a finite global oil resource.
3. Reduce the production of airborne pollutants (think smog if CO2 is hard for you to swallow.)
4. Increase job opportunities through the increased manufacturing, operation and maintenance of new energy production and delivery systems.
5. Create industrial opportunities with low cost energy availability and globalization of energy system manufacturing.
6. Allow for rapid deployment of sustainable energy production capability to developing nations through the use of scalable, localized renewable energy systems that will take advantage of localized resources. For example, a solar powered system in Africa could run water supply system for an entire village but, the cost and availability of fuel makes the use of generators prohibitive.
7. To grow, nations require energy. As developing nations seek to better their infrastructure they are creating a competitive situation for the existing energy resources (see #2) which, escalates energy costs due to supply vs. demand.
As new methods and technology becomes available to industrialize the process of providing hydrogen at a cost society is willing to pay then, hydrogen will become an integral part of the total energy solution that will encompass many energy sources.
Methods such as using an alloy of aluminum and gallium to extract hydrogen (http://www.physorg.com/news98556080.html ) seem to be making strides to make commercial use of hydrogen viable but, more must be done before wide scale adoption is practical.
-
24
12/02/09 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20091202135822.aspx
A little food for thought on the ethics of the global warming crowd. If it is happening and that is IF, it's because of solar activity...NOT CO2.
For those who don't think we should be talking about global warming I would like to remind them that is the reason for considering hydrogen as a fuel.
-
25
01/27/10 | Report as spam
RE: What is holding back hydrogen energy?
Curt Doolittle (post 6) has it exactly right - producing hydrogen
from ANY source is inherently energy inefficient. Since people
want electricity when "the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't
blow", getting more electricity from nuclear sources and making
battery-electric cars IS the rational way to go for a carbonless
energy future.
In a quiet cul de sac in the Atlanta suburb of Marietta, battery expert Robert Dopp (right) is trying to get past a bottleneck that has held hydrogen energy back for years.
