The Hydrogen Debate: Rose vs Romm
by John Laumer, Philadelphia on 10.21.05
TreeHugger recently sat in on a public "debate" on the future of hydrogen as an energy source. The occasion was a "Town Square Roundtable" sponsored by the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. PBS carried it, and you can still download the audio file. The atmosphere was fascinating. After the two hydrogen experts...Robert Rose of the US Fuel Cells Council (the "proponent", representing an industry point of view), and Dr. Joeseph Romm, Executive Director of the Center for Energy and Climate Solutions (the "skeptic", author of "The Hype About Hydrogen", and organizational partner of the World Wildlife Fund)... had finished their individual talks, questioners lined up. The audience was diverse. The everpresent perpetual motion machine proponent asked a question. Even a biodiesel advocate spoke up. But, frankly, there seemed to be a social buzz that far outweighed the signal of hydrogen technology.
Something had us in its grip. What hellhound got an East Coast elite so pumped over hydrogen? One questioner proclaimed 'people say hydrogen is an energy source; but it's not; it's just an energy carrier' "Yeah", I thought, "and gasoline is just a hydrogen carrier". Don't think so? Octane: eight carbons bound to nineteen hydrogen atoms. That cloud coming out of your exhaust pipe is water. Even this writer got caught in the buzz. Presumably the rational part of the audience was staying still?
Climate Change, it seemed, had become the evening's provacateur, tempting energy geeks (from whom we are certain to hear from after publishing this piece) to get a notch more shrill, and making their heads spin with ideas. Impatient activists are the long standing norm. But impatient and testy scientists are something else. Perhaps an abiding fear had already begun to permeate those who have studied energy and climate risks. That would help explain why anything that seemed to take too long to help is being looked at with greater skepticism. Enough speculation. See what you think.
On the "pro" side, the audience listened intently to Mr. Rose's authoritative sounding anecdotes: Here's a sampling of what he had to say. [Note: remarks that follow are paraphrased.]
* Hydrocarbon combustion for transportation results in 1 to 3 million asthma cases.
* All major automakers are committed fo fuel cell car development.
* A fuel cell powered vehicle sheds 600 Kg over a hybrid due to the inherent lightness of the electrical architecture.
* When someone points out that a fuel cell car costs a million bucks, its because of the 6 engineers standing around watching it get tested. Its not a production model.
* Nine million tons of H2 are moved around in the US every year: when was the last hydrogen accident you heard of?
* National Academy of Science is currently studying hundreds of storage options.
* Hydrogen burns at one tenth the flame temperature of gasoline.
* Gasoline results in approximately 7,400 gasoline fires and explosions, annually, at gas stations. Gasoline is often the first material ignited, but we accomodate it.
* When a car lights up, the gas spills down, and burns up the car; but H2 disperses upward and leaves car underneath.
* A fuel cell powered vehicle gives you electrical generation on wheels, and a source of water for emergencies.
* H2 can be made and stored while a fuel cell car is parked: usually most of the day.
On the "con" side, Dr. Romm next pointed out that these are dire times for science in general, citing the fact that the next day Congress had invited SciFi writer, Micheal Crichton, to be lead witness to a hearing on climate change. Among his major points:
[Note: remarks that follow are paraphrased]
* Practical H2 powered cars will be sold after 2025, and we don't have that long to wait to take mitigating action against climate change.
* Hybrids are the "no compromise car" to solve climate change.
* Ten (10) degrees of warming over the rest of the century is the business as usual outcome if nothing is done to mitigate climate forcing gas emissions.
* We must deal with cars and coal now, or be prepared for a 20 foot sea change.
* High oiil prices will not solve the oil problem.
* Four (4) tons of coal are needed to make 1 ton of diesel fuel with Fisher Tropff process, which is where China is headed now.
* Hybrids will be such tough competition for fuel cell cars that they will hold them back". (He later clarified that fuel cells have a valid position in stationary applications that is unaffected by hybrid cars).
* Hydrogen opponents typically use driving range of 300 miles as an absolute criteria, pointing out that storage of sufficient hydrogen to achieve that is infeasible; yet average driving distance is still 35 miles per day
* Reformation of natural gas to produce hydrogen fpor transportation will drive up prices of a vital fuel needed for clean electricity production, making winter heating less affordable for those already on low incomes.
* The short and long term policy and investment priority is to displace coal with natural gas for making electricity, not to burn it to make H2 for cars. Therefore, the use of natural gas as H2 source is a poor strategy.
* H2 is not projected to significantly penetrate the US vehicle fleet until after 2035, which is too late to get started seriously on fighting climate change.
* Cellulosic (non-corn) ethanol fueled cars or the E-hybrid (directly chargeable hybrids)are a preferred strategic choice over hydrogen fuel cell propulsion. * Argueably, the e-hybrid 'uses electricity more efficiently than fuel cell cars do, overall.
* Society will soon immerse itself in "global desperation" about global warming, which will increase political pressure for immediate and practical action: hybrids will fit that bill.
Q & A
The most interesting question, and which led to what we felt were seminal answers, came from the session moderator. Perhaps you can guess which answerer is which? Or not.
Q: What is one recommendation you each would make to government? [Note: question and answers are paraphrased]
A1: 'More imortant than picking a single technology winner is a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHG emissions. Once C02 has a price, let the market pick the winner'.
A2: 'Now is not the time to pick a winner due to politics. If I was king of the world I would drive a massive international effort to pursue several technologies. Goverment should be part of the planning'.
These two answers seem to closely overlap, to where two diametrically opposed experts ended up in almost the same place after an evening's debate.
Overall, we think the hydrogen skeptic got the most positive audience response. However, both presenters did a great job and the moderator was quite effective.
Near the end, the moderator asked for a show of hands from those who currently drove a hybrid car, and then for those who bicycled to work. The proportion of the audience that did both was high, far higher than would be expected for a larger sampling of the populace. Wouldn't you know, its those darn TreeHuggers again.
Sillice: Recycled Glassware and Art
|
McDonalds Recognized for Social & Environmental Efforts by Ceres
|
I would like to expand on "keeping a pet". I agree with pet keeping but not for all animals. I don't believe in clipping a birds wings to keep them in a cage - even though we clip dogs & cats to fix them- it is not the same. I also don't believe in keeping big snakes in a little glass cage or 1 fish in a litte bowl. I've also seen big cats with their vocal cords cut and I think that is so bad. Some animals should not be domesticated.
In my mind, biodiesel outdoes hydrogen, due to better power density, energy density, market readiness, cost, and GHG impact; it negatively differentiated by emissions, particularly a small increase in NOx (which can be filtered or resolved with additives). Proper wintering and pressurization are the only other technical issues. Politcs and fossile fuel subsidies are the real problems.
Yes H2 has great promise if problems can be sorted out. Seems to me what needs to be worked on are solutions that are CO neutral. This also means that plug in hybreds should get their charging power from a non-carbon releasing source.
=== author's response follows =====
Agreed. Your comment opens the door to a related topic. A significant part of the nation's electric power is already neutral: hydroelect capacity installed in the first half of the last century. Canada too is in a position to export hydro electricity to us. Currently, much of that hydropower is used to drive extremely energy intensive industrial processes like aluminum and chlorocaustic making. SHould those processes have their capacities move overseas, the freed megawatts can be re-sold as green power.
I don't think it is fair to reply to the "hydrogen is not an energy source" thing with a story about gasoline. The trick with gasoline is that it is a relativley simple reformation of crude oil.
Crude oil to hydrogen might be a better comparison, if one wishes to explain "energy sources."
Or perhaps it would be better to remind readers that the vast majority of hydrogen is now produced, like gasoline, from fossil fuels?
==== author's response follows ======
Your proposed reminder is a good idea. Here goes. Most hydrogen in commerce today is made from natural gas, which is methane (CH4), in which1 carbon atom is bound to 4 hydrogen atoms. Setting aside thermal inputs to hydrogen production because the same amount is needed regardless of what the end use of the produced hydrogen is, one Mole of reformed CH4 yields one Mole C02 and two Moles of H2. Manufacture of gasoline re-tags those twp Moles of hydrogen back on two carbons in a chain of hydocarbons (c8 -c12 mostly). When two Mole's worth of CH2 segmens are subsequently burned in a car engine it yields the energy of combustion to the car's drive train and another two Moles of C02 and two Mole of Water emitted (assumes 100% efficiency). Now here is the critical point: if the two Moles of hydrogen originally produced from natgas/methane bypassed the ICE engine and instead went directly to a fuel cell powered car, two moles of C02 are scratched from the life cycle balance sheet and the water is clean enough to drink: plus the particulates, NOX, SOX, and CO are no longer put where people live and move. They are kept back where optimum technology can be used to control them, in a factory. This is not a matter of fairness, it is a matter of objectivity.
Ah, is there anyone who is currently "scratching CO2 from the balance sheet" in a production environment?
I'm aware of sequestration proposals, but I believe there is some question as to when and how widely they would be implemented - as well as how sealed some of the proposed geologic containments really are.
I hate to get cynical, but I think the "beauty" of the H2 car scenario is that it moves CO2, not off the balance sheet, but rather out of the automobile discussion and off to be "someone else's problem."
I wish to address the biodiesel opinion. While Biofuel is indeed a great short-term solution that needs to be considered (heck, I recently switched to a Diesel car [VW Jetta] simply due to efficiency alone [500+ miles per tank] think for a moment if the entire automotive industry switched to Biodiesel. There simply would not be the production capability to run the country, let alone the world, on biofuels alone.
With that said, hydrogen not only possesses the answer to meet the world's energy needs, it does so cleaner than any other alternative.
However, we are missing a critical point, everybody knows hydrogen is at least 20 years away from market penetration. My argument is two fold.
1) Encourage, subsidize, provide incentives, do *whatever* possible to encourage consumers to look to diesel cars as an alternative. It is simply mind numbing to think why the US has not caught on. Go to Europe, what do you see? ~70% of cars on the road are diesel. Diesel is cheap, easy to maintain, fuel efficient, and contrary to public opinion... release fewer emissions than your average automobile today with the exception of NOx, which can be addressed with ease. Along with a transition to diesel, grow, market and develop Biofuels as a niche market.
2) Develop the hydrogen economy. Don't do it in a rush, develop infrastructure, production and transportation in an intelligent manner. Let diesel and biofuels buy some time.
3) Nuclear energy. Nuclear thermolysis (production) of hydrogen is one of the most economically promising technologies. {See: http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:11k35aqk1YkJ:anes.fiu.edu/Pro/s10Sc.pdf+Nuclear+Thermolysis+Hydrogen&hl=en&client=firefox-a)
Nuclear energy has been tarnished in the US by old-school [out of date] thought, conjuring up images of three-mile island. The simple fact is Nuclear energy is not only safe, but also the simplest and most effective means of large-scale electrical production. Again, you see Nuclear Power Plants dotting the landscape in Europe, why not here?
America is slow to change, and hindered by petroleum-funded politics. I don't have the answers of how to change policy and politics here, but two points seem clear (to me).
1) Hydrogen is not the best near-term solution, Diesel is.
2) Hydrogen in the long term can only be commercially viable with the acceptance and implementation of Nuclear energy in the US.
I urge anyone reading to please take action. Contact your representatives, tell them you want to see hydrogen, and you want to see it done right. [Not reformed from petroleum-based fuels, but created through nuclear reaction byproducts and electrolysis].
===== author's reply follows ====
Good stuff! Strategically speaking, a switch to diesel fuels, and especially bio-diesel, subverts the need to pump literally millions of tons each year of hydrogen into refineries, freeing the comensurate amount of methane otherwise used to reform to hydrogen for generating electricity. It also means upgrading present refining capacity in an entirely different way than if the policy were to favor gasoline. Currently we get much of Europe's gasoline, a byproduct of their refineries being tipped "toward diesel". WE do need more refineries here: but it is essential to have the Federal incentives favor low sulfur diesel production and equally essential for drive vehicle production to mandate particulate filtration be part of the design, just as catalytic conversion was in the early 1980's. Diesel particulates are deadly as presently emitted and must be contolled. They are associated with biodiesel as well.
There is a problem with H2 that I have not seen anyone addrest. How do you get the "big busness" out of it? With Bio fuels (like the grease car)I can make my fuel at home or nearby. but a H2 car will require some giant H2 Co to make it for me. I mean how long would it be before we say "EVIL H2 CO" not evil oil co.
" There simply would not be the production capability to run the country, let alone the world, on biofuels alone "
True.
However, there currently does not exist the production capability to run the country, let alone the world, on H2 Either!
Unlike H2 - BioDiesel is an answer that has no technical roadblocks to be implimented on a large scale Right Now.
- the infrastructure exists Now
- the transportation methods do not need to be changed
- Less than 90% of the polutiants of Petrolieum Diesel
- Carbon Neutrual
- Can be made from a variety of sources
general waste, food production waste, Reused oils etc.
AND I Have not even touched on a possible Diesel Hybrid!