But pursuing a range of alternatives would cut carbon emissions sooner, an NRC study says
With substantial investments, hydrogen could become a
competitive fuel within 15 years, but the fastest way to reduce carbon
emissions from vehicles will be to pursue a wider “portfolio” of new
technologies, a panel of experts asserts.
Once hydrogen becomes competitive, it could virtually
displace gasoline by mid-century, and related carbon dioxide emissions in the United States
would be down to 20 percent of current levels, says the National Research
Council study, released on July 17. “You could potentially, in the best case,
eliminate all oil from U.S.
transportation, and most of the carbon dioxide emissions,” said Michael P.
Ramage, who was the executive vice president of ExxonMobil Research and
Engineering Co. and chaired the National Academy of Sciences National Research
Council panel. He spoke during a press briefing announcing the study.
Meanwhile, for the next 15 to 20 years, hydrogen will have
little impact on reducing carbon-dioxide emissions. Until then, the panel says,
carbon-dioxide emissions should be kept in check by a multi-pronged approach,
which would include hybrid cars, biofuels, and increased fuel efficiency of
gasoline-powered vehicles.
Carbon dioxide is a major contributor to the greenhouse
effect, which scientists say is the main cause of global warming.
Hydrogen-fueled cars only emit water vapor, although some carbon dioxide may be
released in the energy-intensive process of producing the hydrogen fuel.
The NRC study focused on cars, light trucks, and SUVs, which
together account for about 20 percent of America’s carbon dioxide emissions,
according to NAS. It responded to a congressional mandate to determine whether switching
from gasoline to hydrogen would be technically and financially feasible on a
national scale.
The 17 experts — from private organizations and research
institutions — compared the costs and carbon emissions involved with the use of
different technologies, including hydrogen fuel cells, biofuels such as
ethanol, and simply improving the efficiency of gasoline-powered vehicles.
Hydrogen would be most efficient when used in fuel cells, which
extract energy via a chemical reaction rather than by combustion. But fuel
cells are still very expensive and distributing hydrogen to consumers would
require new infrastructure. Consequently, a large-scale transition to hydrogen
will require help from the federal government. “There needs to be durable,
substantial, sustainable government effort to make this happen,” Ramage said.
At the same time, economies of scale and technological
improvements are likely to bring the cost of fuel cells down. In 10 years, the
hydrogen vehicles will be commercially available, if still expensive. At that
stage, the government would need to step in with subsidies. By 2023, the study
concluded, hydrogen-burning fuel cells will compete with internal combustion
engines.
The panel’s scenario is admittedly optimistic. It assumes that
the government will invest $55 billion between now and 2023, and that private
industry will invest $145 billion over the same time period. It also assumes that
the government will impose a tax on carbon dioxide, which would encourage low-emission
production of hydrogen for the fuel cells.
Found in: Climate Change, Environment and Science & Society
Text Size
The very volume and tone of your post(s) shows the kind of beseiged/persecuted mentality that is the hallmark of an argument that is losing ground. Even with such a large amount of text, you are still lacking in relevant details.
For example, you state "Hydrogen can be easily stored in over 2800 different solid state compounds." Of what relevance is the number of different compounds? Instead, I'd be interested in learning "what's the best energy density can you get by storing hydrogen with such a compound? I suspect the answer is: real compounds so far achieve densities far below that of standard battery technology, and theoretical advancements are still off in the future. That may explain why you did not include that detail.
I even doubt the correctness of your "response" to "Lie #1". You cite no references, no even provide any details, as to how hydrogen-generation efficiency can beat the efficiency of storing energy in batteries; you simply assert it.
One last example: you expend a huge amount of text responding to "We have enough gasoline to last forever," which is an inherently silly statement, and has nothing to do wit
h other alternative-energy approaches. You've essentially built a very flimsy strawman, which you can rip apart with ease and glee.
I am pretty skeptical of hydrogen's applicability to passenger automotive applications, as compared to the still-rapidly-advancing battery technologies. But I can see hydrogen as useful for applications that require energy density over efficiency, e.g. jet airplanes, long-haul ocean liners, and of course liquid-fuel rocket engines such as those on the Space Shuttle. Also perhaps for excess energy storage in stationary applications, where both electricity and heat reclaimed from the hydrogen can be put to use (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cell#Fuel_cell_applications).
But posts such as yours actually serve to discredit hydrogen technologies. I recommend you take a calmer, more-tightly-targeted, and better-referenced approach next time.
A modern fuel cell and hydrogen system beats batteries on every front including
FIRE- Batteries catch on fire constantly and have been the result of massively more fires and explosions than hydrogen. AT&T 's U-verse TV service now has an exploding battery problem, making it necessary for the firm to replace 17,000 backup batteries in its nationwide network. The Federal Government has OUTLAWED Lithium Batteries on airplanes because they explode unexpectedly so often. Batteries blow up when-ever they want to.
Life Span- Hydrogen power systems run massively longer and provide massively greater range per charge than batteries.
Run Time – The run time of batteries constantly shortens while hydrogen does not.
Memory Effect- This effect is not present in hydrogen systems
Recharge Time- modern hydrogen systems are instant recharge.
Charge life- Modern hydrogen systems can recharge massively longer than batteries before end of life.
Nano powder batteries have cancer causing powder that falls into the pores of the Chinese factory workers skin and gives them potentially fatal diseases
Cost- The cost per 300 mile range for a hydrogen car system is massively lower than a battery system. A hydrogen powered car TODAY that will drive 300 miles without a refill is 50% of the price of a battery car that will drive 300 miles without a refill.
Energy from “sour-grid”- A modern hydrogen system can be charged from a completely clean home energy system.
Can’t make energy at home- Hydrogen can be made at home. Batteries cannot.
Storage Density – Modern hydrogen technology has a massively higher storage density than batteries.
Bulky Size- Hydrogen systems are dramatically less bulky than batteries.
High Weight- The weight of batteries is so great ir reduces the reange of travel of a vehicle which causes the use of wasteful energy just to haul the batteries along with the car. Hydrogen energy systems weigh far less.
Environmental soundness- The disposal of batteries after use presents a deadly environmental issue.
Self Discharge issues- Hydrogen does not self discharge like batteries.
Batteries cause a greater carbon footprint than hydrogen
Battery shills are mostly paid for by military contractors.
The charge-keeping capability of a typical lithium-ion battery degrades steadily over time and with use. After only one or two years of use, the runtime of a laptop or cell phone battery is reduced to the point where the user experience is significantly impacted. For example, the runtime of a typical 4-hour laptop battery drops to only about 2.5 hours after 3,000 hours of use. By contrast, the latest fuel cells continue to deliver nearly their original levels of runtime well past the 2,000 and 3,000 hour marks and are still going strong at 5,000+ hours
The electrical capacity of batteries has not kept up with the increasing power consumption of electronic devices. Features such as W-LAN, higher CPU speed, "always-on", large and bright displays and many others are important for the user but severely limited by today`s battery life. Lithium ion batteries, and lithium-polymer batteries have almost reached fundamental limits. A laptop playing a DVD today has a runtime of just above one hour on one battery pack, which is clearly not acceptable.
Batteries require coal be burned to charge them. One pound of coal has roughly 14,000 Btu of chemical energy in it. Any reference textbook says that. When that pound is burned in an electric powerplant, steam is made, which drives turbines at high speed, alternators are turned, and electricity is made. When everything operates well, all that turns out to be generally around 30% efficient, meaning that 30% of the chemical energy that started out in the coal has become actual electricity.
“the hydrogen is too expensive”
RESPONSE: Hydrogen can be made at home or office in numerous ways powered by solar or wind or microbes or any number of free power sources. It is always being made by such devices and constantly trickle charged into solid state storage systems all day and night FOR FREE without grid power. Hydrogen processors now make hydrogen with 91% efficiency.
Lie #6:
“Hydrogen is too dangerous”
RESPONSE: If the gasoline in your car blows up it will do a VAST AMOUNT more death and damage than H2 ever will. You are driving a MOLOTOV COCKTAIL. H2 on fire rapidly dissipates up an into the air. Gasoline flows all over people, cars and streets and covers all of the above with flaming death you can’t easily extinguish. In 2030 oil is GONE and there is NO OTHER OPTION that can be delivered world-wide in time but H2! Biofuel only solves 2% of the problem. Batteries have failed. Nuclear is too dangerous.
Lie #7:
“We have enough gasoline to last forever”
RESPONSE: Gasoline/petroleum/petrochemicals have now been shown to be the number one cause of cancer, and maybe the primary cause of cancer, in the world. Besides causing global warming, lung disease and all of the other bad things that it does; the oil industry itself knows that affordable oil is gone around the year 2030. Even if it wasn’t, do you really want the ROOT CAUSE OF CANCER around one day longer than it needs to be? (See the EPA report “EPA/600/S-6-87/001 Sept. 1987” as one of over 16,000 studies validating this.) Gasoline, Petroleum and the plastics made from it are the single largest cause of cancer in the world. This is a known fact, verified by thousands of studies which the oil industry counters by paying pundits to say: "Well, we just are not sure yet"
This chemical array has killed more Americans than every terrorist since the beginning of time.
The petrochemical bisphenol-a, or BPA, causes precancerous tumors and urinary tract problems and made babies reach puberty early.
Every gas pump has a label on it that oil and gas causes cancer and a host of lethal medical problems.
When there is an oil spill, you are not allowed on the beach because most agencies classify oil as toxic.
A study of childhook leukemia in England mapped every child with the diserase and found they all occurred in a circle, in the center of which was a gas station.
Alberta’s oil sands are one of the world’s biggest deposits of oil, but the cost of extracting that oil may be the health of the people living around them. High levels of toxic chemicals and carcinogens have been found in the water, soil, and fish downstream of the oil sands. The local health authority of Fort Chipewyan, Alberta comissioned the study in response to locals’ claims that the oil extraction projects upstream were damaging the health of citizens. Petrochemicals and their byproducts, such as dioxin, are known to cause an array of serious health problems, including cancers and endocrine disruption.Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) is a term used to describe a large family of several hundred chemical compounds that originally come from crude oil. Crude oil is used to make petroleum products, which can contaminate the environment. Because there are so many different chemicals in crude oil and in other petroleum products, it is not practical to measure each one separately. However, it is useful to measure the total amount of TPH at a site.TPH is a mixture of chemicals, but they are all made mainly from hydrogen and carbon, called hydrocarbons. Scientists divide TPH into groups of petroleum hydrocarbons that act alike in soil or water. These groups are called petroleum hydrocarbon fractions. Each fraction contains many individual chemicals.
Some chemicals that may be found in TPH are hexane, jet fuels, mineral oils, benzene, toluene, xylenes, naphthalene, and fluorene, as well as other petroleum products and gasoline components. However, it is likely that samples of TPH will contain only some, or a mixture, of these chemicals. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that one TPH compound (benzene) is carcinogenic to humans. IARC has determined that other TPH compounds (benzo[a]pyrene and gasoline) are carcinogenic to humans.
Benzene causes leukemia. Benzene as a cause of leukemia had documented since 1928 (1 p. 7-9). In 1948, the American Petroleum Institute officially reported a link between this solvent used in many of their industries used and cases of leukemia in their workers. Their findings concluded that the only safe level of benzene exposure is no exposure at all (2).
The largest breast cancer incidents are in Marin County, California which is tied to the air, water and ecosphere of the Chevron Oil refinery right next door. Gasoline, Petroleum and the plastics made from it are the single largest cause of cancer in the world. This is a known fact, verified by thousands of studies which the oil industry counters by paying pundits to say: "Well, we just are not sure yet"
This chemical array has killed more Americans than every terrorist since the beginning of time.
The petrochemical bisphenol-a, or BPA, causes precancerous tumors and urinary tract problems and made babies reach puberty early.
Every gas pump has a label on it that oil and gas causes cancer and a host of lethal medical problems.
When there is an oil spill, you are not allowed on the beach because most agencies classify oil as toxic.
A study of childhook leukemia in England mapped every child with the diserase and found they all occurred in a circle, in the center of which was a gas station.
Alberta’s oil sands are one of the world’s biggest deposits of oil, but the cost of extracting that oil may be the health of the people living around them. High levels of toxic chemicals and carcinogens have been found in the water, soil, and fish downstream of the oil sands. The local health authority of Fort Chipewyan, Alberta comissioned the study in response to locals’ claims that the oil extraction projects upstream were damaging the health of citizens. Petrochemicals and their byproducts, such as dioxin, are known to cause an array of serious health problems, including cancers and endocrine disruption.Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) is a term used to describe a large family of several hundred chemical compounds that originally come from crude oil. Crude oil is used to make petroleum products, which can contaminate the environment. Because there are so many different chemicals in crude oil and in other petroleum products, it is not practical to measure each one separately. However, it is useful to measure the total amount of TPH at a site.TPH is a mixture of chemicals, but they are all made mainly from hydrogen and carbon, called hydrocarbons. Scientists divide TPH into groups of petroleum hydrocarbons that act alike in soil or water. These groups are called petroleum hydrocarbon fractions. Each fraction contains many individual chemicals.
Some chemicals that may be found in TPH are hexane, jet fuels, mineral oils, benzene, toluene, xylenes, naphthalene, and fluorene, as well as other petroleum products and gasoline components. However, it is likely that samples of TPH will contain only some, or a mixture, of these chemicals. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has determined that one TPH compound (benzene) is carcinogenic to humans. IARC has determined that other TPH compounds (benzo[a]pyrene and gasoline) are carcinogenic to humans.
Benzene causes leukemia. Benzene as a cause of leukemia had documented since 1928 (1 p. 7-9). In 1948, the American Petroleum Institute officially reported a link between this solvent used in many of their industries used and cases of leukemia in their workers. Their findings concluded that the only safe level of benzene exposure is no exposure at all (2).
The largest breast cancer incidents are in Marin County, California which is tied to the air, water and ecosphere of the Chevron Oil refinery right next door.
Oil “IS” CANCER!! It is worth any H2 considerations to eliminate cancer.
“Hydrogen beats batteries, biofuel and all other vehicle power solutions:
A. Hydrogen can be made at home and requires NO NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. Anybody who says it can’t be made at home or work is either a shill or completely out of touch with reality and technology. You can make it for free, at home, all day long and all night long. The production can be powered by solar, wind, microbes and other free sources. The volume of H2 produced “IS” enough to charge solid state H2 containers. The metrics quoted by the anti-hydrogen crowd are just lies to protect their competing business interests.
B. It now costs less to make hydrogen from water than any known way to make gasoline and it continues to get cheaper every month: The GE Noryl system, The R4 processor and over a hundred different systems can do this NOW; with many more expected next year. The “battery shill” spin has worn thin and has been supplanted by facts. Hydrogen is made from WATER via solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy. Hydrogen can also be made from any organic garbage, waste, plants or ANYTHING organic via lasers, plasma beams or dozens of other powered exotics which can be run off of EITHER the grid or the free hydrogen made from solar energy, wind energy, microbes, radio waves, sunlight and salt, and other FREE sources of energy OR the grid. There is no oil that needs to be involved anywhere in the production of hydrogen. These systems trickle charge hydrogen into storage containers, either tanks or solid state cassettes, 24/7. GE, ITM Power, QSI, U of Korea and 30 others have this year announced technologies that make H2 hundreds of times more efficiently than any other energy solution.
C. Tens of millions of dollars are being spent by battery companies like A123, Cobasys, AltairNano, etc. in order to discredit hydrogen because hydrogen works better than batteries. A large number of “pundits” who act as “writers”, “bloggers”, “authors” and “non-profit evangelist group founders” are actually supported by financial gain from battery companies who are terrified of hydrogen displacing their revenue streams. They include:
Ulf Bossel of the European Fuel Cell Forum,
Alec Brooks
James Woolsey
EV World
Sam Thurber
Cal Cars
Felix Kramer
Lets go over the battery and bio-fuel shills lies:
Lie # 1:
“But critics say the process of producing hydrogen requires three to four times more energy than the hydrogen later generates in the fuel cell.”
RESPONSE: This is data from the 60’s. It is now more efficient to make hydrogen than it is to make gasoline, build or use batteries or process bio-fuel. The technology has beat everything else.
Lie # 2:
“the cars are too expensive.”
RESPONSE: The production of hydrogen cars is at an early stage while battery cars have been around for almost a hundred years and the battery cars are still expensive for what you get. The Moore’s law on hydrogen cars shows a clear price decline to low cost in market volume. A Fuel Cell car that goes 500 miles without a charge costs half as much TODAY as a battery car that goes 500 miles without a charge.
Lie #3:
“ hydrogen molecules can't be contained easily without energy-consuming compressors or maintaining them in liquid form at extremely low temperatures , and it's extremely difficult to store,"
RESPONSE: This data is also from the 60’s. Hydrogen is stored in chemical powders and muds that easily contain vast amounts of hydrogen. Pressure and liquid tanks to store hydrogen are old school archaic technologies. Hydrogen can be easily stored in over 2800 different solid state compounds.
Lie #4:
"The infrastructure isn't there”
RESPONSE: Solid state hydrogen can be shipped by UPS, Common Carrier and uses all existing infrastructure. DOPT has already licensed and approved such solid state delivery via common EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE. This method can reavch every person on earth TODAY! This requires almost NO NEW INFRASTRUCTURE. NO INFRASTRUCTURE IS NEEDED!!! This is the biggest lie of all. A large number of start-ups have solid state hydrogen solutions that entirely use existing infrastructure.
What I don't understand is where the energy that is stored in the fuel cell comes from. The most cost effective way would be from fossil fuels (coal powered electric) for water hydrolysis. All H2 would do is move the sources of pollution/smog gases out of urban areas... not reduce CO2. Solar charging of fuel cells would be viable, but the company that uses fossil fuels sells a less expensive fuel cell, and wins in the market place. Right?