A utilization technology is efficient only if its entire process, as opposed to a single step within the process, is efficient. Fuel cell proponents love to cite the thermal efficiency of the internal hydrogen/oxygen reaction, but often neglect the steps that precede it, which include the manufacture, transport, delivery, bulk storage, transfer to the vehicle, compression, and re-expansion of the hydrogen fuel. My article cites the difficulties with the transport step, but there are serious challenges in other steps as well, and I have difficulty imagining a high overall process efficiency.

Lovins claims that by increasing the efficiency of the transportation fleet by a factor of five, the transport problem that I’ve noted goes away, and hydrogen becomes viable. I’m not sure why hydrogen should inspire such an overhaul of our transportation sector – we already know how to dramatically increase fuel mileage, yet we aren’t doing it on any serious scale.

The economies of France and Germany operate at nearly twice the energy efficiency of the US economy, and Japan’s economy is even more efficient. (Economic energy intensity is measured in energy units per dollar of GDP). These countries didn’t need hydrogen to create an efficient economy, and we don’t either. We could easily enjoy much higher energy efficiency right now if it were a priority for us. Again, why should hydrogen inspire this change if available technologies have failed to do so?

We have both an immediate energy source problem and a variety of commercially available technologies to relieve it. Fuels such as soy methyl ester (biodiesel from soybeans) are truly sources of energy, as shown by the National Renewable Energy Labs study that found its life-cycle energy profit ratio to be greater than 4.0. Biodiesel can be distributed using our built infrastructure, and used in conventional (diesel) vehicles. It could thus begin easing petroleum demand almost immediately. Similarly, biomass-fired district heating systems are commonly used in Europe (especially in Austria), and could be quickly implemented here in the U.S. to shield us from the heating fuel price spikes that everyone now expects this coming winter.

So I maintain that although hydrogen makes for fun science projects, it does not provide a solution to the energy problems we face today, and in all likelihood it won’t in the future. We really should put hydrogen aside while we work to re-stabilize our economy, environment, and geopolitics using technologies that are readily available to us.

- Mark Sardella

I find it encouraging that writers like Sardella and Lundberg are now speaking routinely of the "peak" of petroleum production. Once this looming reality makes its way into the mainstream it will inform the kind of sensible policies that were only hinted at 30 years ago. Question is, will the peak get any attention before it actually hits us?

Yesterday (6/30/03) the Democratic presidential candidates were asked about energy conservation and efficiency. They all shied away from talking about conservation, clearly afraid of suggesting that their policies would negatively impact the US's "standard of living." This is probably politically wise at this point, but it does a disservice to our country and the world by perpetuating the myth that our wasteful lifestyle is a good thing. Sardella's article is the kind of wake-up call the public needs to hear.

Thank you Mark. Keep them coming!

Peter Alexander Center for Energy Efficiency

There's no question that far more can be done in the short term to relieve the host of difficiencies noted by Mr. Sardella. There's no question that extensive use of hydrogen is well into the future. But it's not an either/or - we need both, and we need to do energy and R&D planning that has a horizon well beyond the next OPEC meeting.

Mr. Sardella needs to continue his advocacy so that adequate funds are secured to do much more in efficiency and biomass, but he need not attack longer term issues that also require support, particulary by using non-sensical scenarios and wasting time on the age old angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument (carrier or a source? source or carrier? it is a fuel!).

The level of debate regarding our energy policies in the future should not hit such low ceilings. Yes, hydrogen is an energy carrier, and yes it is a fuel. But there is another truth, which Mr. Sardella broached but failed to actually address – we are consuming our primary energy sources faster than they are being replaced. This is the actual problem at hand, and deserves a thorough discussion.

As Runte sensibly points out, this is not an either/or dilemma. The transition from non-renewable primary energy sources to those which can be replenished in a sustainable fashion will require ALL of our greatest technologies and nothing less. The future of energy must include bio-mass sources of energy, such as biodiesel, AND other renewable forms of energy, stored in the form of hydrogen. Yes Mr. Sardella, gaseous fuels have significantly less energy densities than liquid fuels. But where fuel transportation is not an issue, say in a rural village application where local primary energy sources can be used, hydrogen mobility of a few hundred yards, or even a few miles is of little consequence. In this case, the energy required to convert renewable energy sources into liquid fuels may be prohibitive, at which point gaseous hydrogen makes all kinds of sense. If no renewable sources of energy are locally available, a liquid fuel can be trucked in and converted to hydrogen at the point of consumption. No one could logically suggest that hydrogen be generated and then transported 800 miles.

The fact remains that we are consuming primary energy sources, which form the basis of our luxurious standard of living, infinitely faster than they are being replaced. We are rapidly consuming our energy “savings”. We must focus on renewable energy sources like wind, solar, wave energy, and biomass - all of which stem essentially from solar power. These energy sources can then be converted into usable forms – and each energy source will have a different case. If possible, consume the energy as close to the source as possible. If the energy is wave power and the useful form is electricity, then use the electricity whenever feasible. But, if the demand is not there – the energy must be stored. How do you store this energy, Mr. Sardella? Biodiesel, so you can truck it 800 miles? We must be smart about how we talk about these issues. We must find the appropriate solution to the problem at hand. There will be no blanket solutions to our energy problems. Certainly, no intelligent debate should state that hydrogen is that blanket solution. Diverse and widely varying energy technologies will provide stability and sustainability required to carry us into the 22nd century.

Hydrogen economies make sense. As a local energy carrier, hydrogen can provide an energy currency which allows the most appropriate energy source to be selected. If the wind is blowing, make hydrogen from electricity when no one has their microwaves turned on. If the wind is not blowing for weeks and all hydrogen storage has been depleted, a fuel processor can power up and generate hydrogen from any readily available source – including biomass. Please do not discount the value of one sustainable energy technology over another. There will be an ongoing debate, as there should and must be, over which technologies are appropriate for which applications. But we will need them all to persevere through this coming age of energy transition.

The reason is that it does not account for the relative energy content of the mix of goods and services a nation produces. Neither does it account for changes in conservation or reduction in waste over time within a single country. For example, the US showed a big "improvement" in energy efficiency between 1970 and 2000. A major reason for that change is that a number of energy-intensive industries such as aluminum refining, electrochemical processing, and steel making moved off-shore to other countries. The US stopped making so much aluminum, chlorine, and steel and substituted imported products instead. This economic shift dwarfed formal conservation efforts.

Besides that, I agree, the hydrogen economy is not a panacea for the dwindling production of fossil fuels. It is the leading candidate as a transport fuel replacement but to do so will result in surprising changes to the way we live our lives. Hydrogen DOES look good against its only competitor in that replacement role, electric batteries, and is largely attractive only because of battery's fundamental shortcomings which few have hope of transcending.

The days of Sunoco 97 octane SuperPremium will be considered the Golden Age.

I read on these same pages dihydrogen oxide (hydrogen really is a metal) can also escape containers easily; as much as 20% escapes steel cylinders. Unfortunately, it goes directly to the upper atmosphere and very efficiently consumes ozone. This is likely a far bigger problem than hydrogen advocates believe.

I agree, dihydrogen oxide (hydrogen gas) is a lousy energy choice as it is only a carrier as noted in this article, and a very dangerous one as well. Batteries are starting to look pretty good. Remember CFC’s? It hangs around in the atmosphere 100 years and molecule for molecule is 10,000 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Yet, U.S. companies are still making CFC’s, overseas, of course. Imagine the damage if we really did kick in a hydrogen economy. It’s bad enough we need it for the petrochemical industry.

Solar may not be too far off even though it is only scratching the surface now. Nanosys Inc. and others are working on nanocrystals silicon that can be made into solar panels quite cheap. They just got a $850K SBIR grant to get more practical with novel nanocomposite solar cell technology. Look for a revolution in solar technology this decade, surely by the end of the next decade at the present rate of progress.

But also, look for a revolution in transportation efficiency as well (note the word efficiency). Auto’s will be hybrid drives, already well along, to substitute night charging for liquid fuels for short trips (maybe even intermediate length trips). They will be more streamlined and have lower rolling resistance tires and be lighter. Trains for passengers and light freight will hopefully be high speed elevated trains, which I think will be based on the 100 year old gyro-stabilized monorail steel-wheeled train invented by Irishman Lewis Brennan, and fully demonstrated by the UK government at the time. This technology is easily good to 250 MPH with high energy efficiency and capable of jet plane ride due to gyro stabilizing forces. All we lack is the political will to build the elevated steel monorail along interstate highways, and their control centers (like used for airplanes). Private industry will take care of the rest, like developing and building rolling stock (with some government help, of course). Cites and private sources will build the train ports along highways, where generally there is plenty of land (although that is running out fast). See http://www.railroadextra.com/odgyro.Html for a comprehensive viewing of the forward looking train technology invented a 100 years ago and as far as I know being totally ignored by federal transportation officials (incidentally, the first patent for a hybrid car was 80 years ago). Sometimes it takes a long time to realize that an idea really needs to be used to increase efficiency and improve the environment.

Also, we still have hundreds of years of nuclear and coal fuel. We probably have a thousand years of oil shale and sands assuming we get our house in order as regards to efficiency and electricity substitution using hybrid drives. Off the east coast there is probably trillions of gallons of crystal methane as well (also very difficult to get up and regasify). Indeed, we have more oil in shale than the Middle East total by far. Canada has a similar amount as tar sands. Between us we have over 2.5 trillion barrels oil reserves in this difficult to get at source. No place on earth has such deposits of hydrocarbons as we and the Canadians have (it doesn’t seem hardly fair, does it). But it’s costly to produce. Nevertheless, it is good to remember the future source of oil for the world is likely the U.S. and Canada, but it will be expensive oil. But these are future carbon sources for petrochemicals and liquid fuels, not electricity sources. And there is no question that biomass will be a sources of carbon as well, which, using new biological technology being invented now, can become liquid fuels and sources of petrochemicals. And for CO2 advocates, keep in mind nature produces 30 times more CO2 gas every year than we do by burning hydrocarbon fuels.

For anybody who is interested, I just invented an automatic chain transmission that I believe will work fine that can increase transmission efficiency to 99% (a chain’s efficiency) and is ideally suited to hybrid drives. It can be as light weight as a CVT (continuously variable transmission) being used in hybrid vehicles now, have the same high CVT shifting ratio capability (6:1) needed to maximize fuel economy (such transmissions have nearly twice the ratio of a manual transmission), and have no more parts than a CVT. I invented it because I wanted a maximally efficient transmission for an electric car garage project I was working on. Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say. And nothing is more efficient than a roller chain for power transmission (it can exceed 99% efficiency versus ab

Brendan Hemming, BG Group.

Fission and fusion are secondary/planetary SOURCES of energy, and they are but carriers of the energy from the BIG BANG. Sardella is headed in a somewhat correct intellectual direction, but sustainable planetary lifestyles including economic growth must look to the primary and secondary SOURCES of energy, solar fusion & planetary fission/fusion. lls

Several of you touch on a possible synergy that I have long sought. The vision of "every flat surface in America as a solar panel" has always intreged me. The conversion of local water sources to hydrogen at local levels by solar, may be a possible way to extend solar generation across more hours than daylight. Hydrogen as a storage medium can then be used as a chemical pump-storage tactic. Since solar and hydrogen-from-local-water/wastewater is done at the local level it may create several benefits: 1) Reuse of subpotable water as hydrogen souce, reducing treating costs; 2) Reduction in hydrogen transport issues since it can be done at local level, possilby injected into natural gas lines; 3) Boosts localized electric generation mitigating the yet unsolved problems with transmission grid expansion constraints.

Randy

Hydrogen, H2, not dihydrogen oxide, aka water, has the highest energy density per mass compared to any other fuel without considering the storage media. However, when transporting H2 as LH2, energy density per mass is not the key parameter. We need to consider energy density per volume. LH2 has one of the lowest energy densities per volume out of all liquid fuels. Because of the low energy density per volume, the energy density per mass also drops when looking at the total density including the storage media.

As Sardella points out, Hydrogen is not a source of energy here on Earth (Unless we are talking about solar fusion -> radiation ->solar power). As mere mortals, we are concerned with tertiary sources like petroleum and discussions of primary sources are merely academic.

H2 must be chemically separated from some other media, like water, or hydrocarbons. Seperating water into H2 and O2 requires a large amount of energy. It is much more efficient to use the original source of energy directly rather than losing energy due to conversion ineffeciencies. I do agree that H2 offers a much better storage solution than lead acid batteries which are obviously toxic and unsustainable. H2 technologies are wonderful, but they do not solve the fundamental supply problem which this thread is acknowledging.

Chris Boyden

The last time I looked the heat value of hydrogen oxidation was 51,500 BTU/lb and the heat value of gasoline oxidation was between 18,000 and 20,700 BTU/lb. On this basis, 40 tons of oxidizable hydrogen should contain about 2.5 times the energy of 40 tons of oxidizable gasoline. Because of the density difference the hydrogen 40 ton tanker might be considerably longer, but with clever design might use but one and half percent of the energy in its payload during the putative 800 mile trip. Presumably, distribution systems other than tank trucks (those long tanks might just be mains) would be used to transport hydrogen. The tanker truck argument seems as disingenuous as the rhetorical question about the coal and nuclear industries. Ken Davis, John Sutherland (6/27/03) and others have made the case over and over for the nuclear electric generation option in this forum. They didn't seem to need the "hydrogen carrier". Perhaps discussion of the real solutions to the problems of improved efficiencies and sustainable sources would convince some of us that you are not having a hydrocarbon hallucination. Might even strengthen your pitch for some of those subsidies or an EPRI cotract.

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/art7516.php

which is a summary of a recently published 47 page article "20 Hydrogen Myths" downloadable from:

http://www.rmi.org/images/other/E-20HydrogenMyths.pdf

While I do not agree with all that Amory has to say many of his points are worth thinking about.

Ken Regelson

Respectfully, Carolyn J. LaFleur, PE Sustainable Systems Engineering clafleur@txucom.net

What are the economics, and/or feasiblity, of shipping H2 via pipeline? We ship huge amounts of CH4 right now. I know that shipping H2 via pipeline is less attractive than shipping CH4 (due to greater potential leakage, greater compression costs, etc...), but the situation is probably not as onerous as the truck/train case. I'm pretty sure that the energy inputs to such a pipeline (compression, etc..) are significantly less than the energy content of the H2 shipped. Another promising option is the generation of H2 (via electrolysis or CH4 reformation) at or near the point of consumption (i.e., at the service station, or perhaps right in the vehicle).

Hydrogen can be produced via natural gas reformation, through electrolysis, or through catalyzed thermo-chemical production (where water is cracked into H2 and O2 using catalysts along with high temperature heat). Only one of these three options is "threatened" by the H2 distribution problems the author cites.

If natural gas reformation is used, we can simply use the existing CH4 distribution infrastructure to ship natural gas to houses, offices, or (vehicle) service stations. There, small, simple (exothermic) reformers can be used to convert the CH4 into H2 for use in stationary or vehicular fuel cells. Cars may even have on-board reformers, so they would just fill up with natural gas. The only downside of this approach is that the slightly more efficient "steam reformation" approach, which requires large scale plants, could not be used. But the simple reformation approach will suffice if there are significant issues with distribution. It should be noted that CH4 reformation will very likely be the preferred/dominant approach for generating H2 for the next few decades (i.e., until gas starts to seriously run out). Thus, for the first decade or so of the H2 economy, these distribution issues will not be a significant problem.

If electrolysis is used (whether the power comes from renewables like wind, or from nuclear or coal), the H2 distribution problem is not significant either. If distribution is a serious problem or cost, we will simply choose to ship the energy via power lines, as opposed to shipping the H2. Instead of using large, centralized electrolysis plants, we will perform this (highly scalable) operation at or near the point of demand (at "service stations", etc...). The choice between the centralized or decentralized approach will simply come down to economics.

The one method of H2 generation that may be affected by H2 distribution problems is the thermo-chemical generation approach. With this approach, H2 can be generated from any source of high temperature heat (i.e, nuclear, coal, solar thermal, geothermal, etc...). This technology is not scalable down to small size, and requires large thermo-chemical generation plants. Thus, this concept requires that the generated H2 be shipped to the point of use.

It would be a shame (IMO) if this approach died due to distribution problems, because in many ways it is the most desireable. It does not rely on natural gas (which may be have limited supply, is subject to price volatility, still pollutes somewhat, and will eventually run out). Second, it is more efficient than electrolysis, and probably is cheaper. If you used a heat source (and the thermodynamic cycle) to generate power, and then used the power to generate H2, your overall efficiency would be ~40% (~50% efficiency at turning thermal heat into power, and a ~80% electrolysis efficiency). By contrast, the thermo-chemical approach may have overall efficiency levels of ~60%. Thus, you get 50% more H2 from the same amount of primary input fuel. Alas, however, if the costs of shipping H2 are truly enormous, this approach will lose out to the other two, despite its advantages with respect to H2 generation.

Thus, in summary, the use of H2 will not necessarily die if there are serious problems shipping H2 gas. Now let me briefly discuss the benefits of the H2 approach, and why we are embarking down this path.

The short answer is that we may wish to use H2 as our vehicle fuel, eventually, since oil (as well as natural gas) are running out, and are increasingly only produced in a few (unfriendly) parts of the globe. Although other applications are being discussed, transport is the main driver. The main reason for the fuel cell craze, frankly, is that the battery (i.e., electric car) idea did not seem to work out. This is a shame, as the electric car/battery approach is actually clearly more energy efficient, and does not require anywhere near the amount of infrastructure change/investment that the H2 approach does. This fact als

The short answer is that we may wish to use H2 as our vehicle fuel, eventually, since oil (as well as natural gas) are running out, and are increasingly only produced in a few (unfriendly) parts of the globe. Although other applications are being discussed, transport is the main driver. The main reason for the fuel cell craze, frankly, is that the battery (i.e., electric car) idea did not seem to work out. This is a shame, as the electric car/battery approach is actually clearly more energy efficient, and does not require anywhere near the amount of infrastructure change/investment that the H2 approach does. This fact also serves as a warning, as the entire H2 development/infrastructutre investment will be "wasted" if anyone ever comes up with an effective battery.

The H2/fuel cell approach has many advantages. First, say what you will about its costs and inefficiencies (of distribution, etc..), one unassailable fact is that H2 allows you to use a very wide variety of energy source to create your H2 fuel. More specifically, it allows you to create your transport fuel from entirely domestic energy sources, whatever those sources may be (coal, nuclear, renewable). The fact that the energy is domestic, along with the wide range of sources that can be used, creates far greater stability in fuel prices, and greatly increases our energy security. It will also help our balance of payments (i.e., trade defecit).

Second, the H2 fuel cell approach has very significant environmental advantages. Right now, cars the number one source of air pollution, causing tens of thousands of premature deaths every year. At a minimum, if CH4 reformation is used, the fuel cell / H2 approach represents an extremely clean, efficient means of using natural gas to power our transport sector.

Even including CH4 reformation, the overall emissions of this process are negligible compared to the current approach. Also, when one accounts for the efficiency of the fuel cell (at converting H2 energy into electric power, and then into mechanical work), the fuel cell / reformation apprach is more efficient than current cars. In another web discussion, I've heard figures for the overall (well-to-wheel) efficiency of different types of car. The (average) standard car has an overall efficiency of 14% (defined as mechanical energy at the wheels divided by the chemical energy of the crude in the ground). For a hybrid car, the efficiency is 26%. For a fuel cell vehicle (using H2 from natural gas reformation), the efficiency was 42%. Some have stated that a diesel hydrid may have efficiencies similar to that of a fuel cell car. Emissions of pollutants would still be far greater, however.

Thus, in summary, fuel cell cars using H2 from CH4 reformation are worthwhile, as they allow us to use natural gas to power the transport sector, in a much cleaner and more efficient fashion than is used today. Thus, even if you accept that oil and/or gas will remain the primary energy sources, this would still be the most efficient way to go, thus preserving our oil/gas resources for the longest time period.

The case for fuel cells gets even stronger if oil and gas start to seriously run out. The simple question is posed, what are you going to use then, as your vechicle fuel? Unless someone develops an effective battery, H2 (generated from other, long term sources like nuclear, coal, or renewables) may be the only choice. This is what is driving the whole movement.

I do agree with the author on one thing. Shipping H2 to fuel cells that are being used as stationary power sources may never make sense. First of all, while natural gas is around, you'd just ship the CH4 to the sites (using our EXISTING distribution infrastructure) and would simply reform the CH4 there. In fact, many fuel cells can run directly on CH4. In the more distant future, when the gas is gone, we will use other sources to make power. We will never electrolysize H2 for future use during peak periods, since in addition to spending a lot of money on the equipment involved, you only get ~40% of the power you initially put in. Almost any other approach will be used (flywheels, compressed air, batteries, demand side management to avoid peaks in usage, etc....). For a LONG while, we will use natural gas to generate peak power. This will probably be the last CH4 application to die. We will save our gas for this application. It is hard to imagine gas ever getting expensive enough for the other (H2) approach to make sense.

In all, the article is very useful in reminding us all that if it sounds too good to be true, it is. Hydrogen will no doubt play a role, but we cannot blindly accept it as a panacea for all our troubles. Thanks for stimulating thinking!

John McMahon

Two more points: Let’s stop talking about petroleum "production". We do NOT produce petroleum, we pump it out. The correct term is DEPLETION. It is important that we use the correct term, to convey the correct situation. We can not produce petroleum, and must depend on whatever dwindling resources are left.

One more: As mentioned in a note above, it takes energy to "produce" petroleum - not money. Economists who think dwindling supplies can be compensated for by increased prices don't know how real things work. When the energy cost of finding, drilling and pumping approach the energy content of the oil or gas “produced”, the game is over. At that point money is best burned at the wellhead for steam in secondary or tertiary recovery.

Of course, hydrogen presents us with a new paradigm. We don’t produce it by simply pumping, and those who enlighten us of that fact obviously think others haven’t figured it out.

But we do understand energy conversion, and know that we will have to actually produce our hydrogen from other sources (such as solar PV electrolysis or biological systems) after the Age of Oil. Our chioces now are about how we do that.

gkamburoff

Amory Lovins, if you read his latest document on the 20 Hydrogen myths, acknowledges that the transport methodology Mr. Sardella describes is ineffective. He also acknowledges the study referred to here by Bossel and Eliasson. Which, by the way, was published by the Methanol Institute (promotes methanol over hydrogen). It seems to me in his rush to debunk H2 and promote his own agenda Mr. S fails to acknowledge the obvious answer to his objections, which is distributed H2 production.

I don't know that I agree with Mr. Lovins' argument that distributed natural gas reformation or off-peak electricity production is the best way to get started with H2 (I would prefer more efforts in the renewables direction), but at least it provides a somewhat more sophisticated argument than Mr. Sardella's which assumes that H2 would be plugged into the existing highly centralized energy production system.

I am also not sure that H2 is going to be the magic bullet, but I also think it is a mistake to write off what at first blush looks like a fairly elegant solution, without some serious study and especially when its supporting technologies are in their infancy.

In the mean time we are making little progress toward the efficient use of the energy sources we have, a point made by Mr. Sardella, but I believe that the real energy shocks that are coming will nudge our sleepy public consciousness and we will find ways to enact conservation measures and the creation of new energy infrastructures in short order. This will come with a big cost, but hey, Pres. Bush just authorized $369 BILLION for "defense". Imagine what we could do if we earmarked those expenditures for retrofitting inefficient homes and buildings. Instead of shooting bullets, troops could be blowing insulation. We could create an energy efficiency/industrial complex complete with revolving doors between government and the private sector. Lobbyists could be plying politicians with campaign funds to get special consideration for their clients just as they do now only the clients would be Johns Manville and Owens Corning. Keeping up with the Jonses would have more to do with square feet of south-facing windows than with cubic feet of SUV's.

Will hydrogen have a part to play in all this? You bet it will. Mr. Sardella talks up district heating; how about district hydrogen? He doesn't suggest that we transport heat calories 800 miles so why does he consider moving hydrogen that distance? There will be many ingenious solutions to the problems we have created with our dependence on fossil fuels and there will be many failures, too. It behooves us to not count hydrogen out yet, we are far from being able to justify that.

Current stationary fuel cells such as the molten carbonate fuel cell of FCEL are using natural gas and generating kilowatt hours, delivered to the customer's meter at a far less expenditure of BTUs. The simple cycle fuel cells are estimated to have respectively the following efficiencies: 300 kW - 54%, 3000 kW - 57% and their hybrid (combined cycle) is projected to have the amazing efficiency of 78%. Because of their small size, these are efficiencies at the customer's load, not far off at some central station 200 miles away which have to be adjusted for electrical losses to the load. If natural gas goes up in cost the fuel cell integrated with a coal gasifier is a marriage made in heaven according to EPRI.

An Auxiliary Power Unit for a car is likely to have an efficiency of about 30%, some three times the 9% or 10% efficiency of a 200 HP engine idling to drive a 5 kW alternator while the driver of an 18 wheeler is asleep for the night, or when you are waiting in your car for your wife to finnish her shopping and you want to keep the air conditioner and the radio going.

Sure hydrogen is only a carrier of energy. That is a red herring. Who cares! In time hydrogen will be produced by fusion energy or by algae. Until then we can continue with the our hydrocarbons, getting rid of 99% of toxic pollution and much of the greenhouse gases by the use of more efficient fuel cells to convert the hydrocarbons into electricity and into thermal energy at the site of the loads where it can be used.

My regular project work is in generation and distribution of electricity. Most everything I have worked on except for one of the SEGS project in California has been fossil based. I would like to say that my company has had a plethora of solar cell projects but we do not. There have been a couple of studies for systems with 250 kW solar arrays. SSOE Systems (http://www.ssoesystems.com/alternativenergy.htm ) has three 1 kW demonstration solar arrays on the building roof (in Ohio). Please send me some of the encouraging links to renewable energy projects. VTrejchel@SSOE.com Volt

The same technology can be used to significantly reduce electricity used for commercial air conditioning. Configuring our engine as a chiller, driven by a paired Stirling engine, we can produce chilled air with the same efficiency as a mechanical chiller and, by producing the chilling off peak, we can use the same engine to produce gas-fired power on peak. Thus, we have shaved the equivalent of "two electric peaks" using the same asset, resulting in very attractive economics.

There is much that can be done to ease us into the post-fossil fuel future. Where are the investors to nurture such inventiveness?

On the first point, even if the concept that 'hydrogen is an energy vector not a source' (fusion excluded) is not new, it might as well be 'new' to most of the public. Our national politicians from both parties are promising this solution will be the magic bullet with just a few billion in research dollars. But the real effect is to maintain the status quo as Congress will likely cut funding to this major research effort in a couple of years and in the meantime (likely decades) we will suffer from continued overdependence on fuel sources that we must obtain from foreign (and usually unfriendly and expensive) sources.

On the second point, those of us in the 'energy industries' have bought off on (or accepted for competitive reasons) the environmental handicapping that has been applied to use of our most abundant domestic fuel resource. The US has large reserves of economically recoverable coal. Even with the cost of additional environmental controls for the commercially proven reduction of SOX, NOX, particulates, and mercury, coal generation would come in at much less than the levels of $28/MWh plus (equivalent to $4/MMBtu plus) for the fuel portion of natural gas generation (assumes 7,000 Btu/KWh Net HR of CCCT unit).

But environmental constituents have convinced us that we need more stringent controls than can be reasonably achieved over an immediate transitional period and so we have environmental legislation gridlock (e.g. Senator Jeffords). We therefore put off currently available environmental improvements and hold-out for utopian technological solutions somehow made economic by government penalties imposed on emissions from other more abundant domestic resources.

Furthermore, technology has existed for years to provide for the production of a near natural gas equivalent from coal but as a nation we have failed to fund the research necessary to make it commercially abundant. If we utilized coal to produce such syngas then we could mitigate the natural gas supply imbalance at a lower domestic cost and simultaneously prepare for the future hydrogen economy with greater energy independence. Coal should be a major component for the initial energy source of the hydrogen vector economy but we've already accepted that the economic and political (includes military) price of natural gas, LNG, and oil are a better bargain. Why does the US insist on handicapping some of its greatest strengths?

I think a good starting point is to let people know that, contrary to conventional “energy efficiency” policies , energy is not somehow created inside of utility meters.

* Hydrogen is only a carrier, not a fuel * There have been various fuel shortages in the US in the last few years (natural gas, heating oil) * Transport of hydrogen in gaseous form in tanker trucks over long distances is foolish * Attention is fixed on a carrier instead of energy sources * Hydrogen is being pitched as a panacea * We should focus instead on efficiency and sustainable sources

Reader responses:

A lot of good replies. The reply by Brook Porter on 7.1.03 was one of the best.

My response:

Although fuel shortages have surfaced in the US in recent years, there’s no reason to hit the panic button in the short term. Natural gas usage has soared because it’s the fuel of choice for new high efficiency power plants, and the infrastructure is still catching up. Supplies of natural gas are not dwindling any faster than that of oil, and it’s spread relatively evenly globally, which lessens geopolitical strategic tensions.

However, we’ve enjoyed a free ride with the use of fossil fuels and their incredible energy densities. With most experts predicting that oil production will peak in 10 – 15 years, and with natural gas to peak not long after, the need to start shifting now is readily apparent. The principal remaining reserves are in the Middle East, not exactly a hotbed of stability. Prices will become higher and more unstable after the peak and probably before.

And of course there’s global warming. We really don’t want to burn the remaining fossil fuels unless we want to get into some very serious climate disruption. We may have crossed that threshold already, by the way. Nobody knows.

Shifting the world to renewable energy sources is going to require a panoply of responses and a lot of innovation. There will be no one answer. However it is clear that the following responses are likely:

- Increase conservation o consume less o focus on local production of goods where appropriate

- Improve efficiency o there are myriads of opportunities to improve energy efficiency o air-conditioning and cooling are both ripe targets o better gas mileage o lighter vehicles o more efficient buildings - Move towards distributed micro-power systems o the idea is to avoid losses incurred by transporting energy over large distances o this applies to both fuel and electricity distribution

- Move towards renewable energy sources o ultimately all renewable energy derives from the sun o wind and solar power both appear to be the principal front runners o wind power installations enjoy a huge growth rate and are rapidly becoming competitive with conventional power sources o both wind and solar power can generate electricity efficiently

- It’s probably easier to transition the stationary power base to renewable power o Need rapid growth of wind & solar power sources

- The transition to renewable power in the transportion sector will be harder. The two main paths appear to be: o Electric cars and hybrids o Biofuels o We may end up using both solutions but in different sectors

- Vehicles that use electric motors (EVs) instead of engines have a lot of inherent advantages o Motors only consume power when they’re used o An all-electric vehicle can have a sophisticated power management system o Using regenerative power requires an EV

- EVs will likely be hybrid vehicles (HEVs) o will use batteries for short term power needs and for power demand spikes o EV designs for extended trips: § will use engines in the short-term § will likely use fuel cells in the future § the use of fuel cells simplifies the design because you no longer need an engine and an elaborate power transmission scheme § pure battery EVs cannot be quickly recharged… a huge liability

o pluggable hybrids appear to be a promising design (PHEV) § batteries supply enough power for say 20 miles per day § PHEVs are plugged into the grid at night for recharge § one study showed that 50% of daily usage in the US is < 20 miles § PHEVs represent huge near term opportunity to shift transportation away from fossil fuels § initial PHEVs use engines; future PHEVs use fuel cells § www.calcars.org has an initiative to encourage the deployment of PHEVS - many informative links at their website

- The transportation sector will require a non-fossil fuel source in the medium term. o A top choice for that fuel is hydrogen. o Getting electricity from batteries is more efficient than hydrogen when you take into account the total system energy costs, so batteries should be used when possible.

- Hydrogen appears to be a useful technology for the following: o getting renewable energy into the transportation sector o storage of unused off-pea

Hydrogen is the fuel of the universe; abundant, efficient and clean--like it or not!

Hydrgen is not a naturally occuring fuel. It has to be produced expending 150% or more energy and produce only about 30% to 60% of useful energy and has to be stored/ transported also. It makes absolutely no SENSE to produce hydrogen to from any source when efficient direct coversion technologies are availble. i.e.Its madness to convert nuclear electricity to hydrogen and then use it to generate electricity.

Innovative Technologies & Projects I offer can save $1000 bn worth investment and energy in USA in just 10 years. ---Ravinder Singh, ravindersinghy77@yahoo.com

What we do have to worry about is emissions from combustion of fossil fuels, and their true price. Although I include carbon dioxide in my concern, fossil fuel energy production and consumption has so many moral, social, political, military and environmental costs that as far as I'm concerned, there's no need to believe in the notion of human-induced climate change to see a clear need to curb our wasteful consumption of these resources.

Is hydrogen our salvation? I agree with the author of the article that hydrogen is a dubious saviour at best. But ultimately, it all comes down to life-cycle energy efficiency- total watts in per tonne of CO2 produced, for EVERY aspect of the production of the fuel, the generation equipment (from its raw materials), the disposal of the wastes, and the disposal or recycling of the equipment at the end of its life cycle.

From what I've seen, relative to the alternatives, there's insufficient efficiency gain to warrant the reformation of fossil fuels to hydrogen for use in a fuelcell, particularly once the massive capital costs of the reformer, hydrogen storage and fuelcell infrastructure are considered. This goes for stationary power generation, but it goes double for transportation applications where the low energy density of hydrogen per unit volume, and the high capital and operating costs of the required storage equipment, renders it a very problematic fuel.

If renewable source hydrogen is used, and the hydrogen is generated during off-peak periods, perhaps there may be some energy efficiency justification for using hydrogen in fuelcells. But hydrogen has to compete fairly with other means of storing energy and using the stored energy to generate electricity- and again, the low energy density and cost to store hydrogen render it an imperfect choice as a storage medium. Are other sources better or worse? A careful analysis is necessary- one that doesn't neglect any part of the process, cradle to grave.

Don't forget that PEM fuelcells use platinum as the catalytic metal. This metal is found in ores located in only a few regions of the world, at concentrations less than a ppm. The refining of this metal is a lossy and expensive process. My understanding is that at current "state of the art" platinum loadings, the current minable platinum on earth will be gone before all of the existing internal combustion engines are replaced with PEM fuelcell stacks (not to mention the future ones. Don't forget about the >2 billion souls in India and China that will one day want what we in North America take for granted...). So what? It's already expensive, and additional consumption will take the price HIGHER, not lower- and it's already a very significant cost. Sure, platinum is recyclable, but we've done a poor job of recycling the platinum and palladium in IC engine catalytic converters, so the established track record is pretty bad. If you reduce the platinum loadings, the PEM fuelcells become both larger and more susceptible to deactivation from contamination. So the entire life-cycle of the entire system has to be considered to evaluate a technology fairly.

If hydrogen isn't our salvation, what is? The answer is simple: conservation. We're energy gluttons, addicts and morons in North America. We burn coal to heat water to make steam to run a turbine to run an alternator to feed a grid which radiates half of the product off into space, and then at the consumer end, we use the fraction that's left over to make low-grade heat! We lug two tonnes of metal around to transport one person who is going the same direction as 100,000 other people. We do countless stupid things with energy. Why? Because it's artificially cheap, and hence consumption doesn't send the correct signal to the consumer to cause them to aggressively conserve it.

Sorry, people, but there's no magic technological fix to the world's energy woes. The facts are simple: if you want people to conserve a scare resource, you need to make it more expensive by taxing it, and investing the proceeds into capital projects to help people conserve it. Or to put it another way, you need to ensure that the commodity is priced at a level which reflects its TRUE cost to society, so that people will conserve it wisely.

You also need to decide what

And now we talk about adding a very inefficient energy carrier, hydrogen, to the equation - reducing the EROEI even more! Hydrogen is a very inefficient carrier and shows very little potential of ever being efficient. The second law clearly states that transforming a source from a form to another results in losses. Now, how many of these transformations are necessary in the hydrogen production/storage/conversion cycle? Improving the efficiency in one part of the cycle will not change the global efficiency much since it is the cascade of losses that is killing the process.

We are running low of natural gas almost as fast as we are on oil so using it to “lug our personal two tons of metal in the same direction as 100 000 others” :) is out of the question.

And biodiesel is not a source either. Doing a balance on the process yields something like: 1,04 GJ of energy + 0.18 acre of good land + some products + 32 000 liters of water =>gives=> 1 GJ of biodiesel + 102 kg of soy meal + 3.28 kg of glycerine + others + wastes. The fact that some people decided that they could assume that, since soy meal represented ¾ of the products, it could therefore be credited for ¾ of the energy invested, is the only reason for the positive energy ratio – it does not change the fact that there is no energy profit – the only profit from this equation is soy meal and a transformation of the initial energy into a convenient fuel.

Don’t get me wrong, we have to convert to renewable energy sources – for which we will, no doubt, need to develop storage capacity that might be, if we are desperate, hydrogen, but, preferably, should have higher efficiency. But we also have to adapt with the reduction of available energy that will inevitably come with them.

Do we really need cars that much?

Perfect Indian

Personal transportation does indeed waste a lot of energy, but it is wishful thinking to hope consumers will adopt more fuel-efficient vehicles in significant numbers when the price of gasoline hovers around $2/gallon. Consumers have fallen in love with big pickups and SUVs, so while sharply higher gasoline taxes and other measures would appear to be sensible, they're too dangerous politically to ever see the light of day. Automakers can and should produce more efficient vehicles of all sizes, and fore0gn-based manufacturers are likely to do so sooner than their American-based counterparts, but it won't happen overnight. Finally, any tax on primary energy extraction would cause significant harm to domestic oil and gas producers and likely increase an already highly adverse balance-of-payments situation (tariffs on foreign oil are not a practical option).

As for the original premise of Mr. Sardella's article as printed in this publication, all of the arguments are interesting and reflect careful thought, but they are also largely abstractions. If someone can recommend reasonably impartial sources that compare the costs of fossil-fired, renewable and conservation alternatives based on contemporary data, I would be very interested in seeing them. Based on what I've read here and my own back-of-the-envelope calculations, hydrogen storage based on renewable energy production only makes economic sense if the price of oil is several times higher than it is today, and that assumes no transportation.

Suggest that the true cost of hydrogen will appropriately position it in the energy equation - be it as a "fuel" for mobile fuels cells or other uses. Lets have a true and full life cycle cost (including all input, capital and environmental costs) debate, so we really understand the price/value of hydrogen and not have it shrouded in mystery, inaccuracies and cross subsidies.

Suggest that (static) fuel cells that run on methane and other fuels will also gain their market share - lets make sure the public understands that not all fuel cells need hydrogen.

I have long held the view that the amounts of energy required to produce the volumes of hydrogen needed could only come from nuclear plants (other means of manufacture being at the margins) and thus the promotion of hydrogen is a ruse/diversion to support continued reliance on ever increasing imports of hydrocarbons in the short term and then a major ramp up in nuclear power in the medium to long term.

As a part of the energy equation, I am sure there is a place for hydrogen - but not as a substitute "energy" source for hydrocarbon products.

Stuart Bensley

So, the rest of the debate simply swirls around the question "When does the fossil fuel run out?"

Jack Ellis: Agreed, no reliable detailed comparisons available. Nearest I've come to with some effort is following:

Assume Nat. Gas currently $4.50 MMBTU Henry Hub.

Before you could build a new mine mouth coal IGCC burning 4$/ton coal at 55% eff, convert it H2 in PEM electrolysers and pipe the H2 25 miles to compete with Nat. gas on a btu basis, the Nat. Gas has to reach about $31.00 MMBTU.

CANDU ACR reactor at $1000/kw the Nat. Gas has to reach about $31.00 MMBTU.

If the IGCC pays 25% penalty to sequester CO2, the Nat. Gas has to reach about $31.00 x 100/75 = $41.33 per MMBTU.

A Wind Farm of 1.5 MW GE Turbines in a 33% full load site, the Nat. Gas has to reach $39.00 per MMBTU.

All pretty depressing, to start. BUT. Then get creative. Consider some options. If the system is built to sell 25% of power as peak load electrical, then offpeak --> H2 it could pay off it's bonds over 25 yrs at 6.5% interest with $5.50 MMBTU nat gas, which neatly covers transmission costs of Gas and eliminates the nat gas generation for peaking. THEN arrange to collect H2 from the coal gasifier and drop it into a pipe in offpeak hours. MANY more rational ways to make it feasible now. We should be starting immediately to reduce mid-east dependence and price spiking.

At 20 yr Capital return:

Coal IGCC $20.70 Nat Gas

Wind Farm 33% avail. $33.70 Nat Gas

AECL ACR $21.70 Nat Gas

Coal IGCC 25% penalty for CO2 sequestration $27.60 Nat Gas

Please ignore these 4 numbers in previous post, got into the wrong set. I still stand by the $5.50. I could engineer that unit with some patents I own today.

SB: "......thus the promotion of hydrogen is a ruse/diversion to support continued reliance on ever increasing imports of hydrocarbons in the short term and then a major ramp up in nuclear power in the medium to long term."

This doesn't sound so bad..... Also, you don't make clear what the alternatives are. Our current approach, using oil in a relatively inefficient internal combustion engine, also results in increased imports of hydrocarbons, and also results in MUCH greater levels of pollution, whether the H2 is produced by CH4 reformation or by nuclear.

All studies I've read suggest that reforming CH4 and using the H2 in a fuel cell car has a significantly higher overall efficiency level than burning oil or gas directly in an IC engine. Other proposals, such as an efficient deisel engine coupled with a hybrid drive-train, at best come close to being equal to the fuel cell approach. In any event, the fuel cell approach emits MUCH less air pollution than any of the IC engine approaches. Lower CO2 emissions as well (except possibly for some of the coal-based H2 generation schemes). Thus, the fuel cell/hydrogen car approach is effectively a very efficient, non-polluting way of using natural gas, as opposed to oil, to power our transport sector.

Even if we ignored the enhanced efficiency and the lower pollution, using natural gas is, if anything, better than using oil, as the reserves a slightly larger, and they are distributed in friendlier countries (on the whole). Also, the H2/fuel cell approach allows the possibility of using home-grown, long-term energy sources to power our transport sector. This is, if anything, the number one factor driving the push for H2 and fuel cells. Using fuel cells for stationary (distributed) generation may also result in more efficient use of our natural gas, but the tranposrtation issue remains the primary consideration. In a nut shell, the question is, how are we going to power our cars when the oil runs out, get very expensive, or becomes unavailable for other (political) reasons?

You say the H2 approach would result in using more gas and more nuclear. What else were we going to use? Foreign oil (that's our current approach)? You say that renewables will only be able to make marginal contributions to H2 production. Well, if that's true, it won't be any less true for power generation than it will be for H2 production. In fact, due to the intermittantcy effect, renewables' ability to contribute to H2 production is actually far greater than their ability to contribute to power generation.

If renewables can't contibute much (in either application), than it will boil down to gas, oil, coal, or nuclear in any event. The only way fuel cells (and H2) will "change" the situation is that it will increase the efficiency with which gas is used, and it MAY allow use of domestic fuels in lieu of imported oil or gas. There is absolutely no way that using fuel cells and H2 will increase our imports of hydrocarbons (gas + oil). All it may do is replace some oil imports with gas imports, with the overall consumption (and thus, importation) of hydrocarbons being lower. I also don't see how the fuel cell / H2 approach will affect the distribution of power sources used in this country, with the only exception being that foreign oil will be replaced by other sources. This is true, given that all sources (gas, renewables, coal, and nuclear) can be used to make H2.

In short, what is the energy source(s) that you'd like us to use, that will be used less if we go with the fuel cell / H2 approach? What are the "undesirable" ones that would be used more under the fuel cell approach, and why do you think they would be used more? My contention is that the only effect will be that various other sources will be used in place of foreign oil.

I'm not that good at detailed financial analysis, and I'm therefore not sure how all your numbers are being calculated. It does seem that you analyses are based upon the assumption of centralized H2 generation using electrolysis, or centralized steam reformation of natural gas. I don't see either of these things happening.

What I've gleaned from many articles (including the one above) is that there are significant costs and inefficiencies associated with H2 handling and shipment. While these challenges are not insurmountable, they are sufficient to make it preferable to ship the CH4, or ship the electricity, and to generate the H2 locally, at or near the point of demand. This is especially true given that complete infrastructures for delivering natural gas and electricity already exist!!

H2 for fuel cell cars will be generated by a simple reformer at the service station, or under the hood of the car. In the post-gas age, electrolysis at the service station would be used. Stationary fuel cells will be powered by natural gas directly, or from H2 provided by a co-located reformer (using gas shipped in via the existing pipes). I don't think using H2-powered fuel cells to provide peak power in the post-gas age will ever be done (as this is the most inefficient method of energy storage I can imagine - a ~60% loss of input energy), but if it is done, it would probably use local electrolysis.

I don't forsee the somewhat better efficiency of (large-scale) steam reformation of CH4, vs. simple (small-scale) reformation being enough to offset the costs of large-scale H2 shipment and handling. The only scenario where I can see centralized H2 generation is if gas is no longer the cheapest option, and if the means other than electrolysis (such as thermo-chemical production) turn out to be significantly cheaper than the electrolysis approach. If electrolysis is used, it will be done locally, using "grid" power, since shipping electricity is cheaper than shipping H2. Note that local H2 generation would probably be performed during off-peak times. Thus, the practice will not even result in increased peak grid demand, and therefore has no associated, incremental transmission costs.

The above scenario may be possible, however. What I'm hearing is that thermo-chemical production is likely to be significantly cheaper, and more efficient, than production via electrolysis. Someone mentioned recombination. This is not a problem for current proposed thermo-chemical approached. Water is not cracked directly. Instead, a catalytic cycle that uses sulfur and iodine as catalysts is used. The seprated H2 is never in contact with separated O2. Water and Sulfur is mized (with high temperature heat) to form H2SO4. Water and iodine are combined, under heat to make HI. I think H2 is then created from the HI, and O2 is evolved from the H2SO4 (but my memory is vague). Lab tests show that high temperature heat can be converted into H2 at an efficiency of 55-60% (defined as the H2 chemical energy (i.e., heat of combustion) divided by the thermal input energy).

The high-temperature gas cooled reactor being investigated by DOE can generated power at an efficiency of ~48-50%. It's outlet temperature is 950-1000 oC, which may result in H2 production at ~60% efficiency. If an electrolysis efficiency of ~85% is assumed, the overall efficiency of the electrolysis approach is 40-42%, as compared to ~60% for the thermo-chemical approach. Both approaches require the heat source (the reactor for nuclear, the boiler for coal, etc...). The electrolysis approach requires the power generation equipment (i.e., the "balance of plant") as well as the electrolysis equipment, whereas the thermo-chemical approach requires the thermo-chemical processing plant. The costs of the extra equipment are similar for the two approaches. Thus, for a system of a given cost, the only difference would be that the thermo-chemical system would deviver ~40-50% more H2, resulting in a ~30% cost reduction.

Thus, the economics of centralized thermo-chemical production seem to clearly beat the economics of centralized electrolysis production. Whether centralized thermo-chemical production would beat distributed (point-of-demand) electrolysis production would depend on how much H2 shipment and handling costs. (Once again, since localized H2 production occurs at off-peak times, there are essentially no costs associated with electricity shipment, other than the power loss of ~10%). Finally, none of this will occur while gas prices remain even remotely cheap. Until then, gas reformation will clearly be the preferred approach, and my bet is that distributed (local) gas reformation will largely win out for anything other than a few large-scale H2 applications (such as oil refineries).

Once again, I'm not a financial expert, but I'm coming up with somewhat lower required natural gas cost numbers than Len does.

As stated earlier, one million BTUs (i.e., an MBTU) of energy corresponds to 293 kW-hrs. The actual amount of power needed to create one MBTU of H2 via electrolysis is closer to 350 kW-hrs (due to the electrolysis efficiency of ~85%). As stated in my comments above, electrolysis will mainly be performed locally, using "grid power". The source of the grid power is not really relevent. The electrolysis would be performed at off-peak times, where the spot cost of power is lowest. The real cost of the power is solely the generation cost, as using off-peak power does not result in increased grid expenses. A conservative (high) estimate of off-peak grid power cost is ~4 cents/kW-hr. Note that even if you built a coal or nuclear plant and dedictaed it 24/7 to providing power for electrolysis, the overall (average) power cost will be about 4 cents.

This equates to a H2 cost of ~$14/MBTU. I hear that electrolysis equipment costs are ~$1,000 per kW, but are coming way down. Even at ~$1,000/kW, this would effectively add ~2 cents to the "power" cost, resulting in a ~50% increase in H2 cost. Once again, it is not expected that the electrolysis equipment will add nearly this much. Thus, the H2 cost could be as high as $20. For comparison, natural gas would have to be reformed, probably using a simple, small-scale (exothermic), local reformer (due to the large H2 shipping costs). The efficiency of such reformers is ~50-60%. Thus, to deliver H2 at $20/MBTU, gas would have to cost ~$10-12/MBTU. If the electrolysis cost were to go way down, however, the required gas cost could fall by almost 2/3, resulting in a required cost of ~$8/MBTU.

Note that the initial power cost estimate of four cents is actually a fairly good one for nuclear, IGCC coal, or wind (even w/o the 1.8 cent wind subsidy). Thus, the ~$8-10/MBTU required gas price range would apply for any of these options for producing power via electrolysis.

Now, things may get even better if thermo-chemical production (from either nuclear, coal, or solar-thermal) is used. As stated in the last post, the cost of H2 production using the thermo-chemical approach may be as low as 70% of the electrolysis approach. The downside is that the H2 must be produced at the central location, and shipped out to the points of use. The option of "shipping the electicity instead", and using local H2 generation is no longer there. Stated another way, centralized thermo-chemical H2 production would have to compete with localized gas reformation (which simply uses the existing gas distribution infrastructure), which would raise the required gas cost. Thus, the cost reduction may be less than 30%, depending on the costs of handling and shipping H2.

If we (optimistically) assume a 25% cost reduction (after H2 shipping effects are accounted for), the required gas cost would be ~$6-7.5/MBTU (i.e., 75% of the electrolysis cost calculated above). For what it's worth, what I've been hearing from researchers involved in the concept of thermo-chemical H2 production via a high-temperature gas cooled reactor is that it would become competative with (steam) natural gas reformation at a gas cost of ~$5-6/MBTU.

They said that using nuclear instead of gas to create H2 becomes competative at just about the same time that using nuclear instead of gas for power generation does. This makes some sense since the efficiency of gas reformation, the efficiency of power production from a gas or HTGR plant, and the efficiency of thermo-chemical H2 production are all in the range of 50-60%. Thus, it all boils down to the most economical source of input energy (chemical CH4 energy in the case of reformation, and thermal energy in the case of the thermo-chemical water splitting or electric power generation). That plus all associated equipment costs.

Len, perhaps you could clarify the details of you r calculations, or explain to me where I'm going wrong here, but it appears that my required gas costs are a bit lower. I do like your concept of doing away with gas peaker plants though. Instead, we build all baseload plants, and use then to generate H2 during the off-peak hours. This concept would work whether or not electrolysis or thermo-chemical production is used, although the electrolysis approach will be more flexible. The "co-generation" reactor concept that DOE is studying would (theoretically) allow the heat from the reactor to be used for power generation during peak times, and for thermo-chemical H2 production at off-peak times. This, of course, would require the plant to have both the power production equipment and the thermo-chemical plant (which, of course, involves an increase in cost).

To address the issue of hydrogen transport, let me make the following contribution.

A company called Millenium Cell (among others) is working with a chemical called Sodium Borohydride. NaBH4 is a metal hydride, and thus stores large amounts of hydrogen. If my figures are correct, solid NaBH4 will hold roughly 190+ grams of hydrogen per liter. (This may not be accurate.) That energy density compares well with gasoline, assuming my numbers are roughly correct.

For comparison, liquid hydrogen holds 70 grams of H2 per liter, and compressed H2 at 10,000 PSI holds roughly 39 grams per liter. (Yes, NaBH4 is more energy dense than rocket fuel. Scary, isn't it!)

The real beauty of NaBH4 is the fact that it is a salt. This means that it is water soluable! Thus, you could produce NaBH4 at a central plant, ship it in its dense solid form to filling stations, and at the filling station mix it with water to form NaBH4 aqueous solution.

This solution is non-flammable and is less toxic than gasoline. It can't burn or explode. Since it is a liquid, using this stuff as automobile fuel is a very familiar thing for the consumer.

Drive in, fill'er up.

In the vehicle, the NaBH4 solution is pumped over a catalyst bed, where the H2 is released. The H2 goes to a fuel cell making electricity to drive the vehicle. The NaBH4 is converted to Sodium Borate, NaBO2. Now, NaBO2 is ALSO a salt, and thus remains in the solution.

The waste NaBO2 is collected in an onboard tank, and at the next fillup is pumped out and collected at the filling station.

When the truck comes to deliver the next batch of NaBH4, the waste NaBO2 is collected as well, and taken back to a central facility, where it is recycled into more NaBH4.

Thus you have a system.

For more info, kindly look at these pages:

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iiid1_wu.pdf

http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/hydrogen_workshop/Wu.pdf

http://www.millenniumcell.com/news/hod.html

I must confess, this potential system has me very excited. It is the most practical replacement for gasoline I have seen yet. All we have to do is make it work. :)

James: No argument with your numbers, exact figures are very subjective in this sort of discussion. Main point I tried to make is comparitive numbers for electricity sources. Given coal must not be used unless zero emissions, then cost options for electricity sources are 1) Nuclear 2) Wind 3) Coal IGCC CO2 sequestration. Agreed? I think you may be right about $/MMBTU, I'm used to working metric and have to do "quick" conversions. (Everyone should get metric soon 'cause all this technology is going to develop in other countries first, US will be buying it. higher costs of energy etc. See wind generation.)

Don't assume too soon that H2 will be generated distributed. Many cases where that won't make sense and the piplining is certainly not insurmountable. (Existing 3000 psi nat. gas pipes could be re-lined w/new 3000+ psi tubes small enough to pull. Maintain full pressure outside tube allows new tube to operate at 6000+ psi actual). Deliver remaining Nat gas in space between pipes, H2 in new tube. The two don't even need to travel same direction. Useful for new processes from NRC where CO2 pumped into deep un-minable coal beds, releases trapped methane. Then use the Australian/Cdn new process of in-situ underground coal gasification to release H2 + CO, burn the CO in turbines for power to run compressors to pump the H2 to market + electricity, turbine compressors re-sequester the CO2 liquid in the old cavities. Needs careful management, but this might put H2 into markets cheaper that "the real cost" of gasoline.

Many other possibilities.

mauck: That is neat, agreed. There's also another one (company in Arizona?) that proposes to sell plastic coated pellets of sodium? in bulk. A shredder on the vehicle strips and stores the plastic, mixes the sodium with water --> H2 + NaOH, at refill return the NaOH and plastic for refund, trucked to central plant for reformation using electricity. Also interesting is Vanadium Redox system, alternative to H2, VRB Power (Richmond, BC) I think controls the patents which were developed in Australia. Suspect the fuel might be a bit heavy, though the rest is exactly like a fuel cell. approx. 90% eff. electricity both ways.

My main machine just crashed a couple of days ago so I'll have to look up the links if anyone wants them.