To DP Huntsman: Concerning your comment above. It is important to consider how far in the future “future history” is. Currently, 1+ billion tons of coal per year provides over 50 percent of the electric power in the US. Renewables are a small fraction of that, and, if you subtract hydro, which isn’t going to increase, the remaining renewables are a pittance. The reason? Economics. Coal at $1.20 or $1.25 per million Btus is tough to beat. Renewables, except for some but not all hydro, have not been “competitive” without subsidies. I don’t see that changing within the next 25 or, maybe, 50 years. And remember, significant displacement of coal with renewables doesn’t just cause higher priced electricity for the idealistic homeowner, it ripples through and adds costs to the entire cornucopia of goods and services in the economy.

So existing coal plants will continue to provide much of our power, and some new coal plants will be built to replace old plants, support load growth and probably to displace power now produced from the suddenly high-priced natural gas. That being the case, producing hydrogen and sulfuric acid from the sulfur in the coal is a bonus. In other words, if coal is going to be burned (and believe me it will), why not get something useful from the control of its emissions. Makes sense to me.

It seems that we run into the same old problem. We're not listening to each other. Mr. Huntsman's assertion is mostly correct. In the long term we need to divorce ourselves from digging in the earth for our energy needs. However, the short term problems loom large and potentially catastrophic. We need coal to continue to do the job it has done so well up to now. Many will argue that it hasn;t done well, but consider the fact that we know all the bad things possible with coal, and if we move forward as proposed by Mr Parker we could essentially rebuild the entire coal industry. Along with this opportunity for coal and its related economies, we nned strong leadership and REGULATION to ensure that past abuses are not repeated. The energy industry has done just as much harm as it has good. I suggest a radical restructuring of the economics of capitalism to ensurethat ALL costs are internalized for all products. In coal, this includes clean-upcosts, remediation, payments to asthma sufferers, habitat restoration/remediation, monitoring of endangered species affected by mining operations, payments to workers when the coal runs out and ongoing research to improve production precesses and transition to cleaner technologies. Mining and energy companies have benefited from years of coal production and it's time they start helping in the transition to the future. If what Mr. Parker says is true, then it seems they are poised to do just that. I hope that our legislating bodies do not adopt a wait and see policy but rather actively guide and help shape a future that we can all take part in.

Tom Henkel Strategic Specialist Solargenix Energy (formerly Duke Solar Energy)

In order for coal to be truly competitive in the future it will need to be emission-free. Coal may have more value in the future as something other than a fuel to be burned. By the same token, we must give more value in the future to those who live near coal deposits, human and otherwise. Coal, like other extractive industries, has a horrible environmental record and this will have to be changed.

Ultimately renewable energy will predominate, but we have a way to go yet.

-Jeremy Smithson Puget Sound Solar

I generally agree with Mr. Doss-Smith's assertion that we cannot rely on fossil fuels forever but I do not share his vision for reforming our capitalist system and I doubt it will gain public acceptance.

Mr. Henkel may indeed be correct that the cost of electricity from renewable resources is becoming competitive with fossil fuels measured strictly according to production costs, but renewables require large amounts of land and have their own environmental impacts. Moreover, as part of a hydrogen economy or as standalone electricity sources, they will require costly infrastructure to transport energy from where it's produced to where it is consumed. And even if all of the required technology existed today and the public unanimously supported the required expenditures of public and private funds, it will take at least two decades for hydrogen produced from renewable energy to make a meaningful reduction in our dependence on fossil fuels.

I'm not suggesting we simply give up on the use of renewable. I am suggesting that renewables aren't the magic answer, the necessary technology and related infrastructure are far from mature so that we need to think in terms of evolution rather than revolution, and the energy industry must establish and communicate a reasonable set of expectations to the public at large.

Respectfully,

Patrick Doss-Smith

One Faraday or 96,485 Coulombs can liberate 1 gram mole of hydrogen, or 1 gram mole of ions. Thus, 1 mole of hydrogen = 2e x 96,485 Coulomb x 1 Volt x 1 hr./3600 sec. = 53.60 Whr.; hydrogen = 2.016 gram. Therefore, 1 lb. of hydrogen requires 53.60 Whr./2.016 g. x 1000 g./1 kg. = 26.59 kWhr./2.205 kg./ib. = 12.06 kWhr. Hence, 1 Volt is the equivalent of 12.06 kWhr/lb. of hydrogen.

The Electrochemical Potential (@25C) of HBr is 0.555 V and that of H2O is 1.229 Volts. Actual voltage for commercial electrolysis (which includes inefficiencies, overvoltages and parasitic loses) generally range from 0.9 to 1.0 Volt and 1.8-2.2 Volt for HBr and H2O respectively. As indicated above, 1 Volt is the equivalent of 12.06 kWhr/lb. of hydrogen. Thus, the electrolysis of HBr requires from 9.65-10.85 kWhr./lb. of hydrogen produced. Water, in comparison requires 21.71 - 26.53 kWhr/lb.

Accordingly, electrolyzing HBr as an intermediate hydrogen carrier, instead of H2O, reduces electrical energy requirements over 50%; and does not require a distilled, deionized feedstock.

Robin Parker

However, I have to admit that I am impressed by the stated pollution performance levels (if true) for many clean coal options (coal gassification, etc..). Many state that these approaches literally yield zero (negligible) levels of pollution. If that were true, than the external costs (other than mining issues) would drop to negligible levels. The net effect of such a policy would be to "require" that all coal plants be these new designs. Accounting for externalities would basically force the closure of all current coal plants (over some reasonable time period) starting with the oldest and dirtiest.

The new "zero-emission" coal technologies are somewhat more expensive than the traditional designs, but at last coal will be competing on a level and fair playing field with the sources that have always had much lower or negligible external costs.

I'm less sanguine, however, about the ability of these technologies to avoid CO2 emissions. Whereas I believe these technologies may very well reduce all the other pollution to negligible levels, I'm not confident that containing all the CO2 can be practically done. Even if it could, it is likely to be uneconomic. Under the "external cost" approach, energy options that emit CO2 should have to pay an economic penalty for doing so. If it is cheaper to sequester the CO2 (unlikely), then they would choose to do that (and would not have to pay the tax). The penalties would have to be set high enough for us to meet our CO2 reduction goals. I remain convinced that, even with these new clean-coal technologies, coal will slowly be phased out if we ever decide to apply meaningful, enforceable limits/reductions in CO2 emission.

Even with external costs applied, however, I do not believe that we are anywhere near the day when renewable sources can supply all, or even most of our energy. They will grow rapidly, and start to contribute a significant share of power production over the next 10-20 years (especially wind), but cost, intermittantcy, and land use issues will prevent them from being the dominant source for a long time to come. Environmentalists need to accept this.

In addition to increasing renewable's share (over what it otherwise would have been), external cost accounting will increase conservation, efficient uses of gas like distributed generation and cogeneration, will encourage the use of newer, more efficient, and less polluting coal and gas plants, and more use of nuclear (vs. fossil) power.

With respect to hydrogen production, it may be a bit early to suggest that all of our hydrogen be produced with renewable energy. Whereas hydrogen production (as opposed to power production) does greatly alleviate wind's problems with intermitantcy, cost and land use issues may still prevent it from being able to provide all the hydrogen. These issues may also limit solar or geothermal.

Using coal to generate hydrogen will still yield substantial benefits in terms of energy security as well as air pollution (if clean coal technology is used). It is unclear if there is any CO2 emission benefit, however. The use of renewables or nuclear to produce H2 has both the above benefits along with the complete elimination of CO2 emissions. I think it's too early to play favorites. I think that if we are to significantly reduce foreign oil consumption, we are going to need all three sources of H2 production (coal, nuclear, renewable).

Mr. Henkel stated that wind can produce power at a cost of 3 cents/kW-hr. I'm almost certain that this price includes the effect of the (extremely large) direct goct. subsidy of ~1.7 cent/kW-hr. Actual (total) wind power costs are closer to 5 cents/kW-hr, and this is based upon the very best sites.

If we were to greatly increase the amount of wind power production (for power, or H2 production), we would have to start moving to poorer sites, which would negatively impact the economics (although this would likely by offset by continued improvements). Shipping large amounts of energy (as H2 or as electricity) from certain sections of the country where the best sites are to the points of demand may also become a significant issue, one which would significantly impact the final overall economics.

Another factor that may limit wind's potential is (believe it or not) land use and public acceptance issues. My understanding is that wind currently only provides 0.2% of total US power production. To provide 20% of our power generation, the total number of windmills (and associated amount of covered land area) would have to increase by a factor of 100!, actually more like a factor of ~150 given that the current sites are the best ones, and they'll have to move down to less and less disireable sites. Transportation energy usage is about equal to that of electric power. So, to also power 20% of our hydrogen production, you'd need 300 times the current windfarm area. To provode half of all H2 (and power), we're talking almost 1,000 times the current windfarm area!

Even at today's trivial amount of land use, we're starting to hear objections from locals concerning coverage of scenic land areas. Imagine what will happen when we try to increase that by a factor of 1000! By then, wind may have lost a large amount of its initial appeal. For all their other problems, traditional power plants are point-like, covering negligible land area.

I'm not saying I don't favor wind (or solar). I'm just saying that ALL energy sources have their problems, and that none are a silver bullet that will be able to handle ALL our needs, without any problems. Thus, sources like clean coal and/or nuclear will also be needed (along with a whole lot of reformed natural gas, at least at first).

One final point concerns the relative costs between wind (or solar) and other potential H2 sources. The gasoline price sounds low to me, but I don't have the info to verify that. (They must not be including any of the additional costs like H2 handling, storage, shipment and distriution, compression, administrative costs, profits, taxes, etc....) What I can do is make relative H2 cost comparisons between various options.

Mr. Hinkel says that wind (and solar) can deliver power at 3 cents/kW-hr, but I know the real (unsubsidized) value is closer to 5 cents. I also often hear Nth plant cost estimates of ~3 cents/kW-hr for advanaced coal and nuclear plant designs (this time, with no significant govt. power cost subsidy). Other issues include the difference between thermochemical H2 production vs. electrolysis (the thermochemical approach is more efficient), and the high cost of electrolysis equipment, especially for intermittant (low capacity factor) sources of power.

My understanding is that electrolysis equipment is very expensive, and adds significantly to the overall H2 cost. What's worse, the cost is mostly a function of capacity. Thus, there is a large penalty for lack of continuous utilization. A 300 MW capacity windfarm (with a ~30% capacity factor) produces as much power (kW-hrs) as a ~100 MW capacity traditional plant (at a 90% capacity factor). However, the windfarm would have to buy electrolysis equipment with a 300 MW capacity, as opposed to a 100 MW capacity, which will significantly add to the H2 cost (relative to the traditional plant).

Then there is the inefficiency of electrolysis in general. Power sources based on heat generation (and the thermodynamic cycle) are actually at an advantage for H2 production, vs. non-thermal source that produce electric power at the same cost.

Lets say I had a thermal plant that generates electric power at 3 cents/kW-hr, and a wind farm that also generates power at 3 cents/kW-hr (lets ignore the subsidy). In theory, if I used the power from the thermal plant to generate H2 via electrolysis, I could produce H2 for the same cost as the windfarm (actually less, due to the higher utilization factor for the electrolysis equipment).

However, I would never use the thermal plant that way to generate H2. The thermo-chemical process is clearly better. Using iodine and sulfur as catalysts, you can convert heat (at 900 oC or more) to H2 at a convesion efficiency of ~60%. In contrast, the heat is converted to electric power at an efficiency of 50%. By the time the efficiency of the electrolysis is factored in, the over

...........By the time the efficiency of the electrolysis is factored in, the overall H2 generation efficiency is closer to 40%. Thus, using the thermo-chemical approach, you get ~50% more H2 for the same amount of heat. The cost of the thermo-chemical plant is similar to that of electrolysis, so the H2 cost would therefore be only ~2/3 of the cost using the electrolysis approach.

Thus, if I have a typical thermal plant (which can currently generate power at ~3 cents/kW-hr), I can generate H2 at ~2/3 the cost of wind. Of course, if you then add the subsidy in, the H2 cost for wind is actually 2.5 times higher (5 cents vs. 2 cents equivalent).

This thermo-chemical process could be used with any source of heat, including the solar thermal plant discussed by Mr. Henkel (assuming it can produce heat at 900 oC). This could reduce its H2 costs by ~30%. It is a better approach than using it to generate electricity and then make H2 via electrolysis. (BTW, I don't know what Ms. Parker means when she suggests that using Br can reduce the energy required to make H2 to 37% of the pure water value. Water electrolysis is more than 37% efficient, so she would be suggesting and efficiency over 100%! I think she's not accounting for the energy required to make the HBr out of H2O and Br. I think this is to be provided by the solar energy input, but she didn't factor that (primary) cost into her cost estimate.)

I've spoken with experts on these matters, and they told me that H2 production costs for the nuclear thermo-chemical approach are expected to be ~2/3 that of wind (and electrolysis) generated hydrogen. Solar thermal could potentially be closer to nuclear (electrolysis from PV generated power would be vastly more expensive). Given that advanced coal plants and advanced nuclear plants have similar power cost estimates, the cost of H2 thermo-chemically generated from coal would be similar to that of nuclear. I still, however, don't see the point of using coal to do this if you're also trying to reduce CO2 emissions.

Will the public find it worth it to pay the extra costs (i.e., significantly more for a "gallon" of H2 fuel) for the "piece of mind" of using renewable sources (as opposed to coal or nuclear)? Will sources like wind or solar thermal still be more popular than traditional sources when our windfarm (and/or solar plant) area is 1000 times what we have now, or will they go through the "growing pains" that the other source went through? Only time will tell. For now, I suggest we keep all our options open (i.e., develop coal, nuclear, solar thermal, and wind methods for H2 production).

Now, with respect to the "clean coal" issue, let me say that although I would be the first to desire the elimination of these non-renewable resources, we should not discount their possible value or use as intermediary steps towards our final goal. In the end, there must be cost-effective approaches/solutions if the economy and population at large is going to readily accept, adopt and impliment them in a meaningful manner. Also, there is a huge issue of infrastructure and non-recouped capital expenditures that must be re-engineered if we can reasonably expect entire industries segments to willingly and readily move towards the use of alternative resources. Also worth further evaluation is the role of much smaller decentralized distributed generation solutions wherein technology innovation can be applied at a much faster pace. The commitment to a large generation facility will require many years of use in order to justify the investment. And let me add that I do feel that this idea of imposing the full spectrum of related costs upon the producers in order to "level the playing field" is an interesting one and it might provide some positive method for supporting new entrants and new innovations. However, I am not sure if or how this could be fairly achieved.

And then there is the much overlooked issue of T&D capacity, which is a rather significant looming problem that has barely touched the public's eye and which often requires an extremely lengthy process in order to implement ... quite similar to the land use issues associated with Wind Mills. Who wants a new power line running through their town or property? ... and underground lines can be quite costly. And, with the public's perception that the energy shortage issues were largely caused by the big bad Enron (and friends) they are extremely skeptical about accepting that there might possibly actually be energy shortage issues. Recently, I believe I read that the public voted against a new T&D for the San Diego Grid. And, the energy forecasts of the CA-PUC over the last 2/3 years have stated that there still are serious energy shortage issues in CA ... namely, if there are a series of extremely hot days (3 to 5 consecutive), then there could be brown-outs and black-outs again. Last year in early June, there were 3 hot days, and sure enough, they issued first a Stage 2 alert, and then a State 1 alert. We have seen relatively mild summers in CA for the past 2 years, but what if this year proves to be extremely hot? Some of the shortages during peak load can and have been reduced through Demand Reduction Incentive Programs, but energy consumption is rising all the time, and I am somewhat skeptical that all of the future forecasted consumption fully includes possible growth due to increased use of computers and related technology.

And then there is the issue of new Generation.

I have read some reports that approx. 60% of all new power generation in the US has been cancelled or put on hold in the last 24 to 36 months though other reports state that there is well-sufficient new generation in the works. I think the true situation is unclear. However, what is clear is that the financial backing for new generation and new T&D has been severely limited due to a number of issues, both having to do with Enron as well as Gov.Grey Davis' efforts to back out of those 10 year contracts ... right, wrong, or indifferent, what the annulments of those contracts mean to financial investors is that projected revenues from contractual obligations no longer have the same credibility to financial institutions ... and this is a serious problem. How does one determine the full cost/benefit/risk of an investment in these extremely volatile times? And, it takes the industry many years to respond to and implement solutions to these needs.

And, all the while, we have T&D infrastructure in the US which is slowly becoming more and more unreliable and inefficient. Two years ago there was a power outage in the Midwest that left 300,000 people out of power and it took

... and it took 3 1/2 weeks to fully respond to this. Just this past year, there were over 1.5 million out of power up and down the entire Northeast coast from a major storm. It is getting worse every year. And in Germany, where their entire grid is post WW2, they have no major power outages at all and most of their main power lines are underground. The EEC in general is moving towards newer and more reliable infrastructure, while here in the US, 60% to 70% of our power lines are Pre-WW2 . . . “Because if it aint broke, Don’t Fix it” And how many financial institutions will back new investment in infrastructure of this magnitude when there is a questionable return? And how many major utilities have the impetus to do this in this socio-economic climate?

There are some serious problems looming and the public doesn’t really want to hear this. Energy costs are going to have to go up if we are going to be able to address these issues because in order to address them, we are going to need huge reinvestments in infrastructure in order to both address these issues as well as migrate towards these alternative “renewables” that we, as a species, MUST sooner or later, implement.