If you have a large nuclear power plant, hydrogen is a great way to turn the electricity from the plant into a fuel that can be used in vehicles but it is not the green fuel that some people envision. If we want to run a hydrogen powered vehicle today, it means that we must consume large quantities of oil, natural gas, or coal. It would be possible to use electricity from windmills or photovoltaic cells to produce hydrogen from water, but that would require more windmills or photovoltaic cells than the human mind can imagine to power a decent sized fleet of cars. What this means is that any switch to a hydrogen economy, will require either the consumption of fossil fuels, or the construction of more nuclear power plants.

There are sources of free hydrogen that can be used as a fuel in nature but the closest natural source is the planet Jupiter. The next nearest is the planet Saturn. These sources are nearly unlimited but the problem is finding a way to transport the hydrogen to earth. It is inescapable that in any realistic scenario, a hydrogen economy will mean a greater consumption of natural gas, coal, oil, or nuclear power.

Gregson Vaux

http://www.nfcep.org a palm size example of a renewable hydrogen system

http://www.h2pac.org a plan for a 5-10 renewable hydrogen transition on a national scale

1 gal of gasoline equals approximately 45 kwh (according to phoenixproject.net).

US oil imports are 6 million barrels per day (300 million gallons per day).

This translates to 13,500,000 mwh per day (to replace oil imports)

Operating 24 hours at 100% capacity, this means 562,500 MW of generating capacity to generate the hydrogen (neglecting the efficiency loss in the hydrogen production process - the second law of thermodynamics requires less than 100%).

Current US generating capacity is estimated at 900,000 MW (Saloman Smith Barney), so we would have to increase total US generating capacity by 63% to generate the hydrogen (assuming 100% capacity factor on the generation).

If the objective is to use renewable wind or photovoltaic generation for producing the hydrogen, then a capacity factor of 33% is more reasonable to expect. This means we would need 1,687,500 MW of new wind capacity. Current US wind generating capacity is 3,000 MW (Industrial Information Resources and Utility Data Institute). The largest current wind turbines are approximately 1 MW - we would need 1.7 million of these to switch from gasoline for transportation. Does anyone know how many suitable sites there are?

This doesn't even address the energy for current electricity requirements.

Messrs. Van Voorhis and Crane show that oil and gas production will soon decline, and prices will rise. This seems reasonable. However, their conclusion that it is time to "build the hydrogen economy" needs a lot more exploration. As I see it, there are the following possible outcomes:

1. Dramatically reduced per-capita energy consumption. This could be accomplished through improved efficiency, or through slower economic growth, or a combination.

2. Alternative energy sources. Although Greens love wind and solar, we should also talk about nuclear.

Furthermore, as oil and gas prices rise, other alternatives become more competitive. The authors give the example of shale oil, with a cost of $13 per barrel. They imply that a world oil industry based on shale oil would increase prices from the current $25-30 per barrel to $40. They imply that this would be a catastrophe, but we have seen oil prices approaching $40, although only for short times, without catastrophic results.

However, even this figure contains the implicit assumption that shale oil production will be as profitable for the shale owners as oil production is for the Saudis and Kuwaitis. This would only be sustainable if shale oil is as geographically concentrated as mideast oil, and if it is controlled by people who can and will withhold production in order to inflate prices.

In short, I think it is reasonable to conclude that "something will change significantly, in the near foreseeable future." However, such changes usually take the path of least resistance. The hydrogen economy doesn't sound like that path.

It appears hydro and wind power do not seem to provide enough for the growth you or anyone else documents. Like you said, shale oil is still too expensive to recover. This basically leaves coal and nuclear.

No one likes nuclear, although we use it everyday. It scares me to think the U.S. or 3rd world nations might be using more and more nuclear power and thus create the nasty byproducts and incumbent risk that society abhores.

This basically leaves coal. Every estimate I've seen to date indicates the US has over 200 years of coal reserves. I am assuming the rest of the world has similar reserves, although I've never seen any documentation on it.

The problem with coal is that it does not burn cleanly...acid rain and such. The other problem is that "rotten egg" smell created from the sulphur in coal.

However, there are some exciting scrubber technologies available which can clean exhaust gases much more efficiently than ever before. I know of one system that uses high voltage electricity and water to clean emissions very effectively. (I have no stake in this concept, by the way.) Although, I must admit that I do not know if this technology applies directly to burning coal.

Here is a "greenfield" idea that is not fully developed, but just for the sake of discussion...

If we were to concentrate on burning coal in plants with super efficient scrubbers that are monitored aggressively by free market people who are selling green house gas emission credits on the open market, then we might have something. The system is self regulating. Government could play a role, but a backseat role, like the FTC, or PUC of Texas, i.e. establish the rules and get out of the way. The plants could be small to avoid the "not in my back yard" problem...hopefully.

Then, if a coal burning plant creates more than its alotted share of emissions, the people trading greenhouse emissions would raise the cost of electricity from that plant in favor of other plants that burn more efficiently.

The result would be clean electricity which could be used to make hydrogen, or charge batteries or whatever is deemed "clean".

Another "green" idea...

I personally would like to see more renewable energy storage systems like a Fresnel lens used to focus the sun's energy to heat a phase change salt. This could be used to provide high temperature heat which can be used to make electricity through a microturbine for a home or small building...100% clean!

The roof of a house could be made like a Fresnel lens to focus on a small container with a phase change salt material in it. One nice thing about the lense is that it will be reflecting the sun's heat away from the house, thus requiring less energy to cool the house.

Did anyone see the Australian green power generator? I believe it was deemed invention of the year by someone. Trying to remember the article (I no longer have it available to me). This thing is tall (about 1000'). It creates a wind tunnel in itself by heating the base with the sun and then letting the hot air rise to spin turbines, if I remember it right.

Pretty crazy stuff, I know. But, from such crazy ideas, really good ones might happen.

Government needs to step up to the plate, big time. The problem is that our elected officials run on 2, 4, and 6 year terms. None are far reaching enough to really address issues like this. In my opinion, we need a staff of people appointed for life, like the Supreme Court judges, to see this technology through to fruition. That may be the bigger issue before any of these crazy ideas will receive enough funding to actually happen. And if government could build incentives in it for an entrepreneurial spirit to help these ideas along through the government maze, then you'd really have something.

We couldn't accept the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions. This may be one of the reasons the rest of the world hates the U.S. We could address this issue by providing some real leadership in this area.

I actually heard a Senator say something like, "...there'd be more wind farms than you'd want to see in your state". I'm wondering who pays for his re-election campaign?

I know it sounds like I'm blaming government for our woes and that is probably a cop out. However, government just passed some EPA legislation that made it more likely to burn natural gas over other fuels. Natural gas is a relatively clean burning fuel. As you noted, however, it is running out fast. The truly clean, green energy motivation seems way too small in comparison.

Just some free form, pie in the sky thoughts...

Lee Montz lmontz@myenergytoday.com

All scientists I’ve read feel we need the ozone layer to survive. Indeed, depleting it too much could cause atmospheric CO2 levels to soar due to reduced CO2 absorption by plans (ocean and land).

Hydrogen is a poor energy carrier (which is all it is) and dangerous, and as we can see, not just dangerous with explosiveness. H2 will never make it as an energy carrier, so we may as well cut our loses and focus on what we really need to do, improve efficiency (includes conservation) of all energy systems and develop long range economic energy alternatives.

You state that the H2 economy will results in an INCREASE in the use of coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. This is not true. At worst, it will involve about the same amount of use of these sources (all combined). We all know that H2 is just a carrier, and is just a way to use other sources to power our transportation fleet. Thus, the only difference is that we'll have the option to use any one of these sources to power our transportation sector, whereas before he had no choice but to use oil. Thus, it clearly does not involve using more oil. We will use less, to the extent we use renewables, or any of those other listed options.

This, in itself, represents a significant benefit. Having more options always enhances energy security and stability. The fact that this approach specifically allows us to get away from oil, the source that we must import from unstable areas of the world, is definitely a plus for energy security.

There is also an overall efficiency benefit, which will allow a reduction in overall energy use to power the transport sector, vs. the current approach. Studies have shown that the "well-to-wheel" efficiency of using natural gas to make H2 and using the H2 in a fuel cell car is about double that of using gasoline in a car. (This is defined as the mechanical energy expended at the wheels, divided by the total chemical energy of the fuel (crude oil or gas) in the ground.) This is mainly due to the very high efficiency of the fuel cell system at converting chemical energy to electricity/work. Natural gas reformation will be the dominant source of H2 over the next few decades. Thus, the H2/fuel cell approach represents a very efficient way of using gas (instead of oil) to power our cars.

Finally, there is a significant environmental benefit. Cars are known to be the #1 source of air pollution, causing ~10,000 premature deaths every year (EPA). The amount of pollution is large, and it is emitted right where the people are, compounding its effect. All of the options discussed for generating H2, including renewalbes (of course), nuclear, gas reformation, and clean coal technology, incvolve MUCH lower levels of overall pollution, per total vehicle miles travelled, than does the current gasoline car approach. Also, usually any pollution that does occur would be emitted at a remote site, as opposed to right in the cities. This isn't a small effect. We are talking about a multiple order of magnitude reduction in pollution and related health effects. (Unless Lloyd is right about the ozone, I suppose :-) ).

One more thing, there is a better approach than using electricity from nuclear (or coal) plants to produce H2. The heat generated at these plants can be used to generate H2 using a thermo-chemical process where heat (and catalysts) are used to chemically separate water into H2 and O2. This process is ~60% at converting heat energy into H2 chemical energy, whereas the electrolysis process is closer to ~40% efficient. Thus, you get ~50% more H2 this way, which would reduce the required number of nuclear or coal plants by 2/3. It will also further reduce the total energy (nuclear + coal + oil + gas) needed for transportation, as compared to the oil/gasoline car approach.

Your calculation did not consider the effects of the very high efficiency of the fuel cell system at converting H2 energy into work (~50% vs. ~20% for the gasoline powered car). However, you also did not consider the fact that if you use a fuel to generate power, and then use it to make H2, you only get about 40% of the initial thermal energy. As I mentioned above, thermo-chemical water splitting is better, with an overall efficiency of ~60%. In any event, it still all about a wash.

I know that transportation accounts for ~40% of our energy use (i.e., of our consumption of primary fuels), and that electricity generation accounts for another 40%. So, your estimate of doubling power production is not far off the mark. Once again, this assumes that we would still need the same amount of primary fuel to power transportation, using the H2/fuel cell approach, as we do now.

If we were to burn fossil fuels in power plants and then use electrolysis to generate the H2, I think that would be the case. The overall efficiency of a gasoline powered car is ~20% (oil chemical energy to work). Good fossil power plants would be ~50% efficient at converting fuel energy into electricity. Electrolysis is ~80%, so the H2 has ~40% the chemical energy of the primary fuel. The fuel cell is ~50% efficient, so your back down to ~20%, equal to the old approach. Thus, if this were the case, we will indeed have to double our power plant capacity, and double the our use of coal, gas, and/or nuclear.

However, I don't think that we will do it that way. As I said above, thermo-chemical production is the better way to use fossil or nuclear (or any other source of heat, such as geothermal or solar thermal) to generate H2. This would increase the efficiency by 50%. We can also use sources like wind to generate the power without using any fossil or nuclear fuel. Also, if you were using gas, you'd never generate power with it and then use electrolysis. Instead you'd reform it directly into H2, with an overall efficiency of ~60% (vs. 40%). All of these options would reduce the overall amount of fuel that we would have to use, vs. the old approach.

Finally, even if we did have to double our power capacity, and use the same amount of overall fuel as we did before, there are still substantial benefits, as I argued before. We still get to replace imported energy from unstable regions with domestic energy sources. Even with the massive increase in power plants, we have centuries worth of uranium and coal, and renewables never run out. We'll have fusion long before running out of any of these. Then, as I mentioned, there are very substantial pollution benefits.

I agree with you concerning oil shale. I don't know what the author's issue is, or the basis of their "economic catastrophe" prediction. I keep hearing that, after you account for inflation, the price of oil in the 1980's was the equivalent to over $60 a barrel (or was it $90??). That's why we had things like "K-cars"!! Remember them!! Despite that, the economy wasn't that bad in the '80s, overall. A consistent price of ~$40 a barrel would not hurt that much, especially given that it would be offset in that alternatives would then be able to compete in many areas.

I also agree that the pump price increase would not necessarily be entirely passed through. Shipping costs are lower, and the markup would be less. The only reason the Middle East can charge that much is that that's what the market will bear (i.e., the price at which supply needs are met is governed by higher cost suppliers, like the US). For them, it's virtually all profit. I think I read that it costs US producers $15-17 to produce a barrel of oil. Why are they still in business? They just have a lower profit margin, that's all. On top of this is that if large scale production ever occurred, costs would surely fall. No, I think the main problems with using the Canadian tar sands will not be ecomonics, it will be the environmental costs.

LM: "No one likes nuclear, although we use it everyday. It scares me to think the U.S. or 3rd world nations might be using more and more nuclear power and thus create the nasty byproducts and incumbent risk that society abhores."

To be more specific, society SELECTIVELY abhores only certain types of risks. Generally, only ones that would generate a lot of press and attention, like a nuclear plant accident. They (arbitrarily) DON'T abhor ~10,000 deaths that occur EVERY YEAR from coal plant pollution, in addition to potential dramatic climate change. This despite the fact that this ANNUAL death toll is greater than the total eventual deaths that would occur in a worst-case plant accident (or terrorsist strike), or that would occur even if the repository leaked like a seive, and nobody ever bothered to clean it up.

(No clear evidence has emerged of any significant number of deaths from Chernobyl. Conservative theoretical estimates are for a few thousand deaths. Western plants are not capable of releasing anywhere near as much radiation, under any circumstances).

It's not the magnitude of the risks here, believe me. Fossil fuel (coal) risks, per kW-hr generated, are at least a factor of a thousand greater than those of nuclear power! A shame that nobody cares. Nuclear power (outside the Soviet bloc) has released no significant pollution, and has had no measurable health effect, over its entire 40-year history. Just how good does the record have to be, and for how long, before nuclear's environmental performance is acknowledged by the public (and politicians)?

I have to admit, I am at a loss to explain what the commenter (and the many others like him) find so scary about nuclear's waste stream. It is the BEST managed waste stream of all major power sources. It's (fundamental) waste "situation" is vastly superior to that of any other source, not the other way around. It generates waste in about one millionth the volume of other sources (like coal). Largely because of this, it is all perfectly contained. None is released into the environment, and the nuclear industry is required to prove that it NEVER will!!

By contrast, other (fossil) sources generate pollution and waste in a million times the volume, and (because of this) routinely just spew it, in mass quantities, into the air and water. The presence of these pollutants (known carcinogens) in the environment is readily measured and acknowledged, and studies clearly show very large health effects from these pollutants. EPA continues to state that they cause $60 billion in annual economic losses, in addition to ~10,000 premature deaths every year, and still nobody seems to care!! I just heard they were going to dump Clear Skies because it "would cost too much" (what, a whole extra 0.5 cents/kW-hr!!).

Choosing coal over nuclear (i.e., being less afraid of it, or more comfortable with it) is a position that simply can't be intellectually defended. The facts are clear; the data is clear; the record is clear. We should jump at the chance at using a source that generates tiny volumes of waste, and takes great steps to completely isolate it from the environment. This is an approach so superior to what we do nowadays (with fossil fuels) that most are incapable of grasping it.

The subject in this case is using nuclear instead of oil for transportation. As I've said before, cars are now the #1 source of air pollution, and cause tens of thousands of premature deaths every year. They also may cause catastrophic climate change. They also lead to our involvement in the messy Middle East, leading (indirectly or directly) to wars and/or terrosist attacks against us. What could be "scarier than that"?

One more thing, Mr. Montz discussed coal plants with ultra-efficient scrubbers, etc... We already have technologies that are light years ahead of that. It's called coal gassification (Mr. Weaver could tell you all about it). Coal is turned into a gas, and is burned in a gas turbine. All the pollutants are left behind in the gassification process. I've heard this involved a quantum leap in pollution reduction, perhaps several orders of magnitude (unlike reductions of ~1/2 or quarter that traditional control technologies, like scrubbers, can achieve).

If coal was like this, it would be almost as good as nuclear. Like nuclear, all wastes would be completely contained, instead of being released into the environment. (They'd still be toxic though, less toxic than nuclear waste, but then again a HELL of a lot more volume of it!!). If not for the CO2 problem, this technology would place coal on a par with nuclear in terms of environmental performance. Then, we could let economics alone decide. I'd make the gassified coal plant pay a CO2 emissions penalty though, unless they could convince me they have a viable means of sequestration.

Of course, what good does it do you to develop such a technology, if th

Of course, what good does it do you to develop such a technology, if they don't make anyone use it. It will be somewhat more expensive than traditional, old, dirty coal plants. Thus, unless we effectively require this technology's use, it will just be put on the shelf. Hell, they're not even requiring them to bring old grandfathered plants up to current code! If we don't even force people to build new plants that use current BACT, then of course we're nowhere near requiring the use of ICGT (or whatever).

If it were up to me, I'd require that all new coal plants be gassification plants. But we're a long way from that. Words can't describe my current anger at the administration (with respect to backing away from Clear Skies, letting grandfathered plants operate FOREVER, and in general, placing no value at all on environmental effects/issues).

Let's get real. The "globalization" model peaked with the idiocy of internet marketing taken to its extreme in the last decade. No, you can't just order up anything you want and have UPS ship it from hell to breakfast over and over. That model crashed, just as our current model of shipping anything from anywhere will crash when transportation on that scale is no longer economically feasible. When industrial production of unlimited plastic gew gaws from China is no longer economically feasible what will we do? And why are we not talking about making that transformation NOW with some attendant pain before we are forced to do it LATER at great pain?

You all seem to be a smart bunch, are you willing to shift this discussion toward conservation, decentralization of agriculture and industry, limiting of transportation, reducing population densities, and the like?

The thermochemical nuclear plants envisioned might have higher production efficiencies but certainly could have higher individual thermal capacities. It is not ureasonable to hopefully expect that US demand for hydrogen for transportation could be meet with 100 to 200 new nuclear reactors dedicated to making hydrogen, a doubling or tripling of current nuclear energy market share.

Frankly, hydrogen supply from nuclear energy is do-able. It will require a shifting of resources from oil tankers, drill rigs, oil refineries, and Saudi bank accounts to domestically designed and constructed nuclear reactors, but as a nuclear engineer, I'm all for it!

Such things as carbon tax, environmental regulation, etc will affect the price. So the price of fossil fuels will have to increase one way or the other.

In a truly open market, new technologies, including conservation, will occur proportionally with the price of energy.

Plants of any type which produce hydrogen for the transportation market will have to be located along the coasts, or off the coasts, and use sea water as the hydrogen source. The cost of coastal land in the US is very high and can only increase, since the supply is limited and the demand is growing. This likely means that plants will have to be located offshore, creating a "visual pollution" issue similar to that created by drilling rigs and wind turbines.

The NIMBY and BANANA forces will work very hard to prevent this from happening, as they have resisted nuclear plant construction, powerline and pipeline construction, refinery construction and wind turbine construction within their fields of view. Their efforts will increase both the risks and the capital costs of any type of plant, making financing of these plants more difficult and more expensive. While there are technical challenges with many of the technologies we will require to provide for our energy future, the technical challenges are not the only formidable challenges.

In the imortal words of Walt Kelly"s Pogo Possum: "We have met the enemy and they is us."