Hydrogen

Alternative Complacency III

Part I is here, Part 2 is here...

Hydrogen. The most abundant element in our universe. So abundant in fact, that we can’t begin to conceive just how much of it there really is. It’s postulated for instance, that for every cubic metre of hard vacuum (that’s deep space), there’s about one thousand atoms, give or take and it gets much thicker around stars. Did you know that Jupiter is about 90% hydrogen and in our neck of the woods, although there’s minimal hydrogen in the atmosphere, it is the third most abundant element on the surface of our planet. In short, there’s a hell of a lot of hydrogen about the place.

I was going to do an article on how there’s not enough going on in the world of hydrogen; how for all its prevalence we don’t seem to be able to get hold of much; how hydrogen manufacturing techniques are cumbersome and expensive; how it takes more energy to make hydrogen than you get out of it; how it burns to hot to use in an internal combustion engine; etc. Truth is, I can’t. Not because I can’t bring myself to do it, but quite simply because I can no longer find good links to prove it.

We’ll start with hydrogen manufacture. The traditional and cheapest production method, until recently, was the steam reformation of natural gas (heat methane under pressure in a steam atmosphere with a catalyst). That meant that hydrogen got to being rather expensive as the price of natural gas climbed from $2US MMBtu (Million British Thermal Units) to over $13US. Now however, we split water and we do it quite cheaply. CSIRO for instance, have recently come up with this little gem that can produce enough hydrogen in a day to power a car for 150km or so. That’s a “micro fuel cell” he’s holding in his hands by the way, not the unit itself (see here for more on fuel cells and the different fuels they use).

What car? Well I’m glad you asked. It seems that BMW, Ford, GM and many others I haven’t looked at as yet, have been rather busy (see the list in this here handy-dandy FAQ about hydrogen). GM developed it’s Fuel Cell car back in 2002, Ford are building dedicated hydrogen V10 engines, BMW has been busy with a “V12 power unit” and so the list goes on. Have a close look at some of the links in those and you’ll also find busses, trucks and various other means of transport discussed.

There are issues however, of that there’s no doubt. Every solution comes with its own set of problems after all. The problem with hydrogen combustion is Nitrogen Oxide or NOx which can become Ozone in the atmosphere and Nitric Acid when it dissolves in water. In atmospheric water, that means acid rain. It’s not as bad as lead or CO, but they are pollutants and need to be dealt with. It’s a good thing then that NOx reduction and capture seem to feature heavily in everyone’s research. Using pure oxygen eliminates the problem with NOx, but making and storing the oxygen reduces the efficiency of the whole hydrogen combustion process by about 11.5%, which of course, adds to the cost.

Then there’s the fact that hydrogen burns hot. Real hot. A hydrogen flame in air burns at about 2400(K – Kelvin) and  3080(K) in oxygen. Coal glows at around 1900c and a gas flame is about 1549c. I can’t seem to find anything about it, but I wonder. With that much heat, it’s my guess that you wouldn’t need anywhere as much to make steam and turn turbines.

The other thing that keeps popping up in my various searches is the phrase “Hydrogen Economy” and this is where the biggest problem of all manifests itself. Some would like to see it happen now, but it ain’t going to. Although leaps and bounds have been made in technology recently and although the US and the EU have agreed to accelerate the development of an hydrogen economy, the reality is that to much is dependant on the fossil fuel economy. The forecast in that report is for Americans to be using hydrogen by 2020.

I think that’s a reasonable target though. “Now” simply isn’t an option because so much of the major economies of the world depend on oil. Fortunes of entire countries are made and lost in the fluctuations of oil prices. To move immediately to an abundant energy carrier that can be made anywhere, by anyone, that will be cheap and have a price that doesn’t fluctuate will cause some serious economic issues. There’s also the little problem of rationalising the coal and uranium industries. These will never go away, we use them for more than energy,  but what do you do with 50,000 miners that no longer have work all of a sudden? No, this definitely needs a bit of thought.

3:48 PM - 14/4/2007 - post comment

Well said, Plonka

I had wondered why hydrogen wasn't in common use as a fuel. I was not aware of the ozone layer problems at all.

There are many engineering and economic problems to be overcome in the transition from fossil fueled power to more greenhouse friendly power sources. Unfortunately, these problems are trivialised by some, and at the other extreme, are used as an excuse by climate change deniers to do nothing. As always, the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes.

snowy - 4:29 PM - 14/4/2007

Thanks Snowy

There's no ozone layer problem per se, it's just that you can get ozone as a result of burning hydorgen. Ozone is not a bad thing, but in quantity at ground level it can be an irritant to asthmatics. Same with Nitrogen Oxide. Neither are greehouse gases though, so at least that can be addressed.

You are right though, the middle is where the answers are to be found. It's quite plain to me that we have the answer, we just need to be patient while the economics are sorted out.

I think that despite what the doomsayers tell us, we still have time to do it right, as long as we start now. It seems to me as I look around out there though, that the ball has been rolling slowly for a few years now.

plonka - 7:52 PM - 14/4/2007

Hydrogen, the wonder fuel

Ted, the way I see it, Hydrogen generation requires some kind of wonder fuel of it's own in order to make H generation economically worthwhile.

While your point about the coal industry participants is true, we still don't have an economically sustainable way of generating the H to use as fuel in the first place.

Solar, to me is looking more and more as the power source that we need, and this obviously requires more research and development in order to get a financially suitable way to get solar cells to pump out more power.

I saw something on Catalyst the other night that gave me hope, but it did occur to me that another couple of major leaps in solar collection technology is required before we can say, H production is economically possible.

Great post, and I for one will welcome H when it is proven to be financially viable.

dikkii - 12:33 AM - 15/4/2007

Wonderfuel indeed...:)

Thanks Dikkii...:)

There's any number of catalyst and/or membrane converters out there now. What you pay depends on the purity you require. Hydrogen pure enough to burn is quite cheap but dirty (lots of NOx). Hydrogen for fuel cells needs to be 99.95% pure so it requires either a better converter or a purification unit.

But there's a reason I'm so optimistic though and it's probably the same reason why Snowy didn't jump on me.

Over the past month and a half, I've had to rewrite this article twice. My groovy nay-saying links kept disappearing. When I started to research this about 3 months ago, steam reformation was the only reliable method to produce "commercial" quantities. Now we do it both ways and it's cheaper to split water, unless you're BP and already have the methane and the infrastructure.

The unit that CSIRO has developed has some serious potential too. 150km a day more than covers my transport needs and it runs off a standard household powerpoint. The power output of a standard household powerpoint can currently be replaced, on a sunny day, by 1 square metre of BP's finest photovoltaic cell. There's your solution for personal transport, primitive though it may be.

More time, research and development is required I'll grant you, but the changes I've seen in the last three months not only give me hope, but has made me think that we will begin to see a shift in the short term rather than the long.

Edited by plonka on 14/4/2007 at 7:15 PM

plonka - 1:35 AM - 15/4/2007

Way Over My Head but I Get the "Why"

My eyes have this horrible habit of "skimming" over the words when things stop making sense. My eyes did that on this post but they landed on a few of your key points to which I can agree with.
I understand the big push for an alternative to foreign fuel and I guess the only question I would have for you is how affordable would your hydrogen option cost?

Sadie Lou - 7:41 AM - 15/4/2007

Costs

The cost is relative Sadie. At present we have vast resources dedicated to the production of petrol (gasoline), so it's fairly cheap. We have very few resources dedicated to the production of hydrogen however, so it's rather expensive.

From what I can find, there doesn't seem to be a lot of cost difference between cracking methane for hydrogen or oil for the various products that yields, but there's a huge cost in changing over. Most of the oil industry would disappear. Can you imagine the economic strife that would cause?

I don't know what electricity costs in the U.S. but answer these 2 questions and you'll answer your own. And you can do this with current technology (see the link to the CSIRO stuff in the article).

1. How much does it cost you to run a heater, powered from a standard 240v (120v in your case) power outlet, for 1 day?

2. How much does it cost in gas for you to drive about 95 miles?

If 1 is cheaper than 2 and the technology is readily available, then hydrogen is the cheaper option.

plonka - 8:45 AM - 15/4/2007

hydrogen

The fuel issue is one which all of us globally are going to have to deal with sooner or later. I would prefer that it was sooner and I find it difficult to reconcile that the major players in this haven't been aware of the continual problematic polluting nature of the fossil fuel industry and the oil industry.

Because so much of the industrialized world's economy relies on the heavy use of oil and fossil fuels, there has been a reluctance to accept the problems associated with it.

It's a bit like the situation that occurred here with Hardy Brothers and the asbestos problem. It took decades for Hardy to acknowledge that firstly there was a health problem associated with asbestos and secondly that they needed to compenstate the victims of asbestosis. The use of asbestos as a building product was eventually banned in australia in 2004, if my understanding is correct. Prior to this, large corporations like Hardy's fought a bloody propaganda war so as to not see its product as harmful to health. The primary reason for this was of course an economic one. But even if the use of asbestos is banned in what we call developed countries, the same is not true in developing countries. Somehow it is considered ethical to sell it to countries whose civil or common law is not as rigorous as our own.

I guess what I am suggesting is that ethics seems to have very little to do with major corporate business model. If there is money to be made, the deliberate practice of injuring people's health in search of the "holy dollar" goes on unabated. It is this mentality that I think also pervades the fossil fuels and oil industries or any industry where there are large fortunes to be made.

beepbeepitsme - 9:47 AM - 15/4/2007

Thanks Beep

I understand what you're saying. I don't think there's any doubt that the main reason we still pollute the way we do is profit. That said however, it makes a lot more sense to me that we take our time and work the shift to hydrogen slowly. Personal transport is a good place to start I think.

As to the likes of Hardy's, Dow, etc. check out what these guys do for a living...:)

http://www.theyesmen.org/

plonka - 10:21 PM - 15/4/2007

Hardy Brothers???

Just before anyone gets confused, Hardy Brothers are winemakers, and to my knowledge, they don't have a major asbestos problem.

Beep, you're referring to "James Hardie Industries NV", I hope? The formerly Australian, now Dutch building supplies company?

dikkii - 11:25 PM - 15/4/2007

Ethics.

Something Beep said.

She's quite right, ethics have bugger all to do with a company's actions in the real world.

Companies see the world in the way of what's legal and what is not.

And where a particular ethic that a company should be bound to might not come to light until a court recognises a "duty of care", this same duty of care will then be used by other companies (or even the same one) to stifle dissent, initiate unethical strategies and generally act badly.

The law is a double-edged and expensive sword and sometimes I hate it for this.

But ethics are so much harder to police. And I hate that too.

dikkii - 11:43 PM - 15/4/2007

hardy bros - james hardy

Oh yeah. Thanks dikki, I had a brainfart. Yes I did mean James Hardy and the asbestos dudes.

My mistake seems to show how much buyer awarness the winemaking company Hardy Bros. has - can't imagine they would be too happy being associated with asbestos though. lol

beepbeepitsme - 8:48 AM - 16/4/2007

Ethics

Ethics have never really managed to get in the way of profit. All the big mining and chemical companies (and other industries too, make no mistake) have been guilty of this at some stage. CSR, James Hardy, Union Carbide (DOW), BHP, Exxon just to name a few.

There's only one thing that will stop them though and that's a lack of profit. Are you prepared to stop using their products? Is it even possible these days?

We've built for ourselves, a society driven by profit. Every aspect of yours and my life is driven by profit........

I can feel a post coming on, thanks guys...:)

plonka - 9:15 AM - 16/4/2007