|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > September 2006 > Three Hydrogen Myths
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Three Hydrogen Myths
|
|
| lkgeo1 2006-09-20, 1:25 pm |
| Three Hydrogen Myths
The Rocky Mountain Institute maintains a Library Page, where there are
several excellent articles on hydrogen, sustainability and other energy
issues which may be downloaded in .pdf format. One of these articles is
a 49-page study entitled "Twenty Hydrogen Myths", written in June of
2003. It includes discussions of several hydrogen myths and facts that
are particularly important to the Hydrogen Energy Center's support for
a renewables-based consumer-driven hydrogen energy economy. We present
here our view of the three most important hydrogen energy myths and
facts.
Myth #1: Renewable hydrogen is too costly.
Fact: Renewables are becoming less expensive as rapidly as fossil fuels
are becoming more expensive. We cannot expect, and do not suggest,
replacing all of our fossil fuels with renewable energy by January 1,
2006. We do expect, and do suggest, that we start now. Even a slow
transition requires that we pursue our plan with a sense of purpose.
In 1999, hydrogen derived from natural gas cost $.65 per kilogram,
gasoline was less than $1.00 per gallon, and electricity from wind
power cost $0.10 per kilowatt-hour. In early 2005, hydrogen derived
from natural gas costs $1.20 per kilogram, gasoline is hovering at and
above $2.00 per gallon, and electricity from wind power is approaching
$0.04 per kilowatt-hour before subsidies. Using present-day
electrolysis technology, we can manufacture wind-powered hydrogen at
prices less than $4.00 per gasoline gallon equivalent (roughly a
kilogram). The per-gallon cost of gasoline and the per-kilogram cost of
renewable hydrogen are steadily approaching the same figure.
Myth #2 Making hydrogen is prohibitively inefficient.
Fact: A gasoline-fueled hybrid-electric car like Toyota Prius nearly
doubles overall well-to-wheels efficiency from 14% for a standard
gasoline engine car, to 26%. But locally reforming natural gas into
hydrogen, and using that hydrogen in a fuel cell electric vehicle can
result in an overall well-to-wheels efficiency of 42%. That's three
times higher than the normal gasoline-engine car's, or 1.5 times higher
than the gasoline-hybrid-electric car's. This helps explain why most
automakers see today's gasoline-hybrid cars as a stepping-stone to
their ultimate goal - direct-hydrogen fuel-cell cars.
In competitive electricity markets, it may make good economic sense to
use hydrogen as an electricity storage medium. True, the overall
round-trip efficiency of using electricity to split water, making
hydrogen, storing it, and then converting it back into electricity in a
fuel cell is relatively low at about 45% (after 25% electrolyzer losses
and 40% fuel-cell losses) plus any byproduct heat recaptured from both
units for space-conditioning or water heating. But this can still be
worthwhile because it uses power from an efficient baseload plant
(perhaps even a combined-cycle plant converting 50-60% of its fuel to
electricity) to displace a very inefficient peaking power plant (a
simple-cycle gas turbine or engine-generator, often only 15-20%
efficient).
This peak-shaving value is reflected in the marketplace. When the cost
of peak power for the top 50-150 hours a year is $600-900/MWh,
typically 30-40 times the cost of baseload power (~$20/ MWh), the
economics of storage become quite interesting. Distributed generation
provides not only energy and peak capacity, but also ancillary services
and deferral of grid upgrades. Hydrogen storage can also save
power-plant fuel by permitting more flexible operation of the utility
system with fuller utilization of intermittent sources like wind.
Once all the distributed benefits are accounted for, using hydrogen for
peak storage may be worthwhile, particularly in cities with
transmission constraints (such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago,
New York City, and Long Island). Such applications may be able to
justify capital costs upwards of $4,000/kW. Another attractive use of
large-scale hydrogen storage would be in places like New Zealand or
Brazil, whose hydroelectric systems have too little storage (12 weeks
in NZ) to provide resilience against drought - but whose snowmelt or
rainy seasons provide cheap surplus hydropower that could be stored as
hydrogen, even in old gas-fields.
Myth #3 Hydrogen is just too dangerous.
Fact: The hydrogen industry has an enviable safety record spanning more
than a half-century. Any fuel is hazardous and needs due care, but
hydrogen's hazards are different and generally more tractable than
those of hydrocarbon fuels. In the vast majority of cases, leaking
hydrogen, if lit, will burn but not explode. And in the rare cases
where it might explode, its theoretical explosive power per unit volume
of gas is 22 times weaker than that of gasoline vapor. It is not, as
has been claimed, "essentially a liquid or gaseous form of dynamite."
Hydrogen is four times more diffusive than natural gas or 12 times more
than gasoline fumes, so leaking hydrogen rapidly disperses up and away
from its source. If ignited, hydrogen burns rapidly with a non-luminous
flame that can't readily scorch you at a distance, emitting only
one-tenth the radiant heat of a hydrocarbon fire and burning 7% cooler
than gasoline. Although firefighters dislike hydrogen's clear flame
because they need a viewing device to see it in daylight, victims
generally aren't burned unless they're actually in the flame, nor are
they choked by smoke.
One videotaped test of a standard passenger car compared a hydrogen
leak with a gasoline leak. In the first test, a hydrogen leak was
created, assuming a very unlikely triple failure of redundant
protective devices. The leak discharged the entire 1.54-kg hydrogen
inventory of the fuel-cell car, but the resulting vertical flame plume
raised the car's interior temperature by 1-2C=B0 (0.6-1.1 F=B0). The
passenger compartment was unharmed. In the second part of the test,
gasoline leaked from a 1.6-mm (1/16") hole in the fuel line. The
resulting explosion gutted the car's interior and would have killed
anyone trapped inside. Because the hydrogen-leak test didn't damage the
car, the gasoline part of the test was conducted using the same car.
Had the gasoline portion of test been done first, a second car would
have been required for the hydrogen leak test.
Contrary to a popular misunderstanding, these safety attributes of
hydrogen actually helped save 62 lives in the 1937 Hindenburg disaster.
An investigation by NASA scientist Dr. Addison Bain found that the
disaster would have been essentially unchanged even if the dirigible
were lifted not by hydrogen but by nonflammable helium, and that
probably nobody aboard was killed by a hydrogen fire. (There was no
explosion.) The 35% who died were killed by jumping out, or by the
burning diesel oil, canopy, and debris (the cloth canopy was coated
with the primary chemical components of rocket fuel which ignited due
to discharge of static electricity when the dirigible docked). The
other 65% survived, riding the flaming dirigible to earth as the clear
hydrogen flames swirled harmlessly above them.
http://www.hydrogenenergycenter.org...&club_id=3D108=
367&module_id=3D8624
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2006-09-20, 1:25 pm |
| lkgeo1 <lkgeo1@aol.com> wrote:
>... Renewables are becoming less expensive as rapidly as fossil fuels
>are becoming more expensive.
If PV costs $8/peak watt and electrolyzers are 75% efficient, what's
the cost of PV hydrogen, before compression or liquification?
>We cannot expect, and do not suggest, replacing all of our fossil fuels
>with renewable energy by January 1, 2006...
It's a bit late for that :-)
Nick
| |
| Jim Baber 2006-09-20, 5:25 pm |
| Jim's comment:
And where is all this natural gas going to come from, and how long will
it LAST?
nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>lkgeo1 <lkgeo1@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>If PV costs $8/peak watt and electrolyzers are 75% efficient, what's
>the cost of PV hydrogen, before compression or liquification?
>
>
>
>
>It's a bit late for that :-)
>
>Nick
>
>
>
| |
|
| Plus after taking the hydrogen out of Natural Gas' hydrocarbons, this leaves
the carbon portion left -- is it stable or does it add carbon dioxide or
monoxides?
"Jim Baber" <jim@baber.org> wrote in message
news:SrydnVGMq5KABozYnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Jim's comment:
> And where is all this natural gas going to come from, and how long will
> it LAST?
>
> nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>
>
| |
| Windsun 2006-09-21, 5:25 pm |
| Most of that totally ignores the extremely high cost of a total change in
the infrastructure that would be needed to switch to hydrogen. Just the cost
of installing hundreds of thousands of fuel stations to replace all the gas
pumps would be many billions.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Solar Discussion Forum: http://www.wind-sun.com/smf/index.php
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"lkgeo1" <lkgeo1@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1158774725.207938.238690@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Three Hydrogen Myths
The Rocky Mountain Institute maintains a Library Page, where there are
several excellent articles on hydrogen, sustainability and other energy
issues which may be downloaded in .pdf format. One of these articles is
a 49-page study entitled "Twenty Hydrogen Myths", written in June of
2003. It includes discussions of several hydrogen myths and facts that
are particularly important to the Hydrogen Energy Center's support for
a renewables-based consumer-driven hydrogen energy economy. We present
here our view of the three most important hydrogen energy myths and
facts.
Myth #1: Renewable hydrogen is too costly.
Fact: Renewables are becoming less expensive as rapidly as fossil fuels
are becoming more expensive. We cannot expect, and do not suggest,
replacing all of our fossil fuels with renewable energy by January 1,
2006. We do expect, and do suggest, that we start now. Even a slow
transition requires that we pursue our plan with a sense of purpose.
In 1999, hydrogen derived from natural gas cost $.65 per kilogram,
gasoline was less than $1.00 per gallon, and electricity from wind
power cost $0.10 per kilowatt-hour. In early 2005, hydrogen derived
from natural gas costs $1.20 per kilogram, gasoline is hovering at and
above $2.00 per gallon, and electricity from wind power is approaching
$0.04 per kilowatt-hour before subsidies. Using present-day
electrolysis technology, we can manufacture wind-powered hydrogen at
prices less than $4.00 per gasoline gallon equivalent (roughly a
kilogram). The per-gallon cost of gasoline and the per-kilogram cost of
renewable hydrogen are steadily approaching the same figure.
Myth #2 Making hydrogen is prohibitively inefficient.
Fact: A gasoline-fueled hybrid-electric car like Toyota Prius nearly
doubles overall well-to-wheels efficiency from 14% for a standard
gasoline engine car, to 26%. But locally reforming natural gas into
hydrogen, and using that hydrogen in a fuel cell electric vehicle can
result in an overall well-to-wheels efficiency of 42%. That's three
times higher than the normal gasoline-engine car's, or 1.5 times higher
than the gasoline-hybrid-electric car's. This helps explain why most
automakers see today's gasoline-hybrid cars as a stepping-stone to
their ultimate goal - direct-hydrogen fuel-cell cars.
In competitive electricity markets, it may make good economic sense to
use hydrogen as an electricity storage medium. True, the overall
round-trip efficiency of using electricity to split water, making
hydrogen, storing it, and then converting it back into electricity in a
fuel cell is relatively low at about 45% (after 25% electrolyzer losses
and 40% fuel-cell losses) plus any byproduct heat recaptured from both
units for space-conditioning or water heating. But this can still be
worthwhile because it uses power from an efficient baseload plant
(perhaps even a combined-cycle plant converting 50-60% of its fuel to
electricity) to displace a very inefficient peaking power plant (a
simple-cycle gas turbine or engine-generator, often only 15-20%
efficient).
This peak-shaving value is reflected in the marketplace. When the cost
of peak power for the top 50-150 hours a year is $600-900/MWh,
typically 30-40 times the cost of baseload power (~$20/ MWh), the
economics of storage become quite interesting. Distributed generation
provides not only energy and peak capacity, but also ancillary services
and deferral of grid upgrades. Hydrogen storage can also save
power-plant fuel by permitting more flexible operation of the utility
system with fuller utilization of intermittent sources like wind.
Once all the distributed benefits are accounted for, using hydrogen for
peak storage may be worthwhile, particularly in cities with
transmission constraints (such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago,
New York City, and Long Island). Such applications may be able to
justify capital costs upwards of $4,000/kW. Another attractive use of
large-scale hydrogen storage would be in places like New Zealand or
Brazil, whose hydroelectric systems have too little storage (12 weeks
in NZ) to provide resilience against drought - but whose snowmelt or
rainy seasons provide cheap surplus hydropower that could be stored as
hydrogen, even in old gas-fields.
Myth #3 Hydrogen is just too dangerous.
Fact: The hydrogen industry has an enviable safety record spanning more
than a half-century. Any fuel is hazardous and needs due care, but
hydrogen's hazards are different and generally more tractable than
those of hydrocarbon fuels. In the vast majority of cases, leaking
hydrogen, if lit, will burn but not explode. And in the rare cases
where it might explode, its theoretical explosive power per unit volume
of gas is 22 times weaker than that of gasoline vapor. It is not, as
has been claimed, "essentially a liquid or gaseous form of dynamite."
Hydrogen is four times more diffusive than natural gas or 12 times more
than gasoline fumes, so leaking hydrogen rapidly disperses up and away
from its source. If ignited, hydrogen burns rapidly with a non-luminous
flame that can't readily scorch you at a distance, emitting only
one-tenth the radiant heat of a hydrocarbon fire and burning 7% cooler
than gasoline. Although firefighters dislike hydrogen's clear flame
because they need a viewing device to see it in daylight, victims
generally aren't burned unless they're actually in the flame, nor are
they choked by smoke.
One videotaped test of a standard passenger car compared a hydrogen
leak with a gasoline leak. In the first test, a hydrogen leak was
created, assuming a very unlikely triple failure of redundant
protective devices. The leak discharged the entire 1.54-kg hydrogen
inventory of the fuel-cell car, but the resulting vertical flame plume
raised the car's interior temperature by 1-2C° (0.6-1.1 F°). The
passenger compartment was unharmed. In the second part of the test,
gasoline leaked from a 1.6-mm (1/16") hole in the fuel line. The
resulting explosion gutted the car's interior and would have killed
anyone trapped inside. Because the hydrogen-leak test didn't damage the
car, the gasoline part of the test was conducted using the same car.
Had the gasoline portion of test been done first, a second car would
have been required for the hydrogen leak test.
Contrary to a popular misunderstanding, these safety attributes of
hydrogen actually helped save 62 lives in the 1937 Hindenburg disaster.
An investigation by NASA scientist Dr. Addison Bain found that the
disaster would have been essentially unchanged even if the dirigible
were lifted not by hydrogen but by nonflammable helium, and that
probably nobody aboard was killed by a hydrogen fire. (There was no
explosion.) The 35% who died were killed by jumping out, or by the
burning diesel oil, canopy, and debris (the cloth canopy was coated
with the primary chemical components of rocket fuel which ignited due
to discharge of static electricity when the dirigible docked). The
other 65% survived, riding the flaming dirigible to earth as the clear
hydrogen flames swirled harmlessly above them.
http://www.hydrogenenergycenter.org...&module_id=8624
| |
| Alan Connor 2006-09-21, 8:26 pm |
| On alt.energy.homepower, in
<fICQg.14629$bM.52@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>, "Windsun"
wrote:
Note that what "lkgeo1" posted in
<1158774725.207938.238690@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>
which "Windsun" is responding to here, is _promotional_ material.
You don't ask Coca Cola Incorporated for information on the
harmful effects of Coca Cola.
> Most of that totally ignores the extremely high cost of a total
> change in the infrastructure that would be needed to switch to
> hydrogen. Just the cost of installing hundreds of thousands
> of fuel stations to replace all the gas pumps would be many
> billions.
Not to mention the _environmental_ cost of creating an entirely
new, and massive, industry.
Just for the steel production necessary, you are looking at
entire mountain ranges being trashed.
(An iron ore mine, a coal mine, and a limestone quarry are needed
to just _begin_ the process of making steel.)
Just the creation of billions of hi-tech hydrogen fuel cells, if
there are even enough PGMs (Platinum Group Metals) to be found on
the planet, will do incredible damage to the environment.
And the fact is that most of the hydrogen would be created from
fresh water, it being much more available in most places than
natural gas, the oxygen being captured with carbon to create
CO2, a greenhouse gas like water vapor....
Freshwater is becoming very scarce on this planet, and is more
critical to humanity than any fuel source.
Try this google search string:
"fresh water" OR freshwater scarcity OR shortage
Many top geopolitical analysts have been predicting for the
last 15 years that freshwater shortages will the cause of
the next major wars on the planet.
Sure, the 'hydrogen industry' would start out with grand (and
massively subsidized) intentions and environmental controls and
guidelines, but once the industry was established all of that
would fall away, as it always does.
And soon, you'd have farmers fighting with fuel producers over
the local and regional water supplies.
So the cost of food and fuel would rise.
Not to mention that massive amounts of fresh water are critical
to most of the major industries.
<snip>
Alan
| |
| Windsun 2006-09-22, 3:25 am |
| No, what would probably happen is that massive desalinization plants would
be set up, resulting in yet more damage to the ocean eco systems, massive
mountains of salt, and more billions of dollars to build, but they would all
be touted as running from "green energy", when in reality they would be
running from hydropower from Hoover Dam.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Alan Connor" <i3x9mdw@j9n35c.invalid> wrote in message
news:slrneh689q.1k0.i3x9mdw@b29x3m.invalid...
>
> And the fact is that most of the hydrogen would be created from
> fresh water, it being much more available in most places than
> natural gas, the oxygen being captured with carbon to create
> CO2, a greenhouse gas like water vapor....
| |
| Alan Connor 2006-09-22, 9:25 am |
| On alt.energy.homepower, in
<2sJQg.14800$bM.12057@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Windsun" wrote:
Topposting corrected.
If you want to be taken seriously, post your response after
what you're responding to.
Makes you look like you can think straight.
On alt.energy.homepower, in
<2sJQg.14800$bM.12057@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Windsun" wrote:
> "Alan Connor" <i3x9mdw@j9n35c.invalid> wrote in message
> news:slrneh689q.1k0.i3x9mdw@b29x3m.invalid...
>
>
[color=darkred]
> No, what would probably happen is that massive desalinization
> plants would be set up, resulting in yet more damage to the
> ocean eco systems, massive mountains of salt, and more billions
> of dollars to build, but they would all be touted as running
> from "green energy", when in reality they would be running from
> hydropower from Hoover Dam.
>
Don't see why you started with "No". I didn't specify where the
fresh water came from. I think you are on track, but most places
are a long way from the oceans and hydrogen is simple enough to
make. A lot of places could probably make it more cheaply from
local fresh water than import it from some distant coast produced
from incredibly expensive de-salinated seawater.
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/cr.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/publickey.html
| |
| Eeyore 2006-09-22, 8:25 pm |
|
EXT wrote:
> Plus after taking the hydrogen out of Natural Gas' hydrocarbons, this leaves
> the carbon portion left -- is it stable or does it add carbon dioxide or
> monoxides?
You get lots of CO2 !
Graham
| |
| Alan Connor 2006-09-23, 3:25 am |
| On alt.energy.homepower, in
<1158774725.207938.238690@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, "lkgeo1"
wrote:
> Three Hydrogen Myths
>
>
>
> The Rocky Mountain Institute maintains a Library Page,
> where there are several excellent articles on hydrogen,
> sustainability and other energy issues which may be downloaded
> in .pdf format. One of these articles is a 49-page study
> entitled "Twenty Hydrogen Myths", written in June of 2003. It
> includes discussions of several hydrogen myths and facts that
> are particularly important to the Hydrogen Energy Center's
> support for a renewables-based consumer-driven hydrogen energy
> economy. We present here our view of the three most important
> hydrogen energy myths and facts.
>
>
>
> Myth #1: Renewable hydrogen is too costly.
>
>
>
> Fact: Renewables are becoming less expensive as rapidly as
> fossil fuels are becoming more expensive. We cannot expect,
> and do not suggest, replacing all of our fossil fuels with
> renewable energy by January 1, 2006. We do expect, and do
> suggest, that we start now. Even a slow transition requires
> that we pursue our plan with a sense of purpose.
>
>
>
> In 1999, hydrogen derived from natural gas cost $.65 per
> kilogram, gasoline was less than $1.00 per gallon, and
> electricity from wind power cost $0.10 per kilowatt-hour.
I'm amazed that I missed this the first time:
Turning natural gas into hydrogen is the stupidest idea I've
ever heard.
Natural gas is an excellent fuel and it would make a lot more
sense to use it directly.
No one is going to turn it into hydrogen.
It's going to be our rapidly waning fresh water supplies that get
used.
If this new anti-solution of the pseudo-progressive worshippers
of technology is ever implemented, and let's all pray that it
doesn't.
It's like recycling: Most recycling does more harm to the planet
than just throwing the stuff in a landfill.
That's why, for example, recycled paper, even with all the
subsidies, costs considerably more than new paper.
And a lot of things simply can't be recycled economically, even
with the subsidies.
Recycling is now just another planet-pillaging industry, doing
more harm than good.
While the elitist psuedo-progressives rake in the dividends. And
let money managers run their portfolios so they don't ever have
to look in it and face where their excessive incomes originate.
Waste Management Incorporated is rapidly taking over recycling
almost everywhere. Those people don't care about the environment
at all. They are into making money and good-paying jobs.
Windsun has it right. He can see past the propaganda to the
reality.
<snip>
Alan
--
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/contact.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/cr.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/publickey.html
|
|
|
|
|