Friend and colleague Tom Armistead takes a turn in this space, this week. Tom is ENR senior editor on the energy and environment beat. His most recent cover story on tidal energy surveys the promising frontier of ocean-borne renewable energy. His take on the hydrogen economy is not nearly as optimistic.

The United States has awakened in the last year to the threats of global warming and our utter dependence on fossil fuel for transportation and electricity generation. Honda Motor Co.’s unveiling of plans in 2008 for limited consumer production of the hydrogen-fueled FCX sedan seems to be a step toward weaning ourselves from what President Bush aptly calls our "addiction to oil."

Don’t sell your ExxonMobil stock yet. The U.S. is in a policy box, and the road out of it is not the hydrogen highway.

Sure, hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. But it’s rarely found alone. That means that to use it for fuel cells, we’ll have to separate, or “reform,” it from other substances. USA Today’s story on the Honda FCX announcement dismissed that concern with the comment, “Nearly all hydrogen is made from natural gas, abundant in North America.”

The truth is, only 3% of the world’s natural gas is located on U.S. soil. Another USA Today story on the FCX correctly noted that, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Russia has 27% of the world supply, Iran 16% and Qatar 15%. And a further truth is that North America’s natural gas supply has been in slow, steady decline for years. Between 1999 and 2004, developers constructed more than 200,000 MW of new powerplants fueled by natural gas, assuming that low gas prices would make their plants excellent peaking choices. Instead, the increased demand meeting the declining supply pushed the price of gas to unimagined highs, and some developers, notably Calpine, over the cliff into bankruptcy. Have you compared your latest gas bill with what you were paying five years ago?

The only way to reduce the price of natural gas is to increase supply. The only way to increase the U.S. supply is to import liquefied natural gas, and that in huge quantities. Where will we get the LNG? Nigeria. Iran. Qatar. Trinidad and Tobago. Russia. Australia. Algeria. Some are unstable, some are not. Some are hostile, some are not. But all of them are outside U.S. borders, and energy security is one of the reasons everyone gives for wanting to wean the country from “foreign oil.” Don’t use the term “energy independence.” There's no such thing, anywhere in the world. We’re interdependent.

In any case, natural gas is a fossil fuel, and we’re trying to get away from fossil fuel because burning it creates carbon dioxide. Hydrogen can be reformed from steam on heated carbon too. But there's a source of CO2. It can be reformed by electrolysis from water. Good, no carbon there. But electrolysis, and all those other reforming methods for that matter, require energy, and reforming by any method is costly, raising the cost of the fuel produced. Where will the energy for reforming come from? The local electric utility? Half of the electricity in this country is generated by burning coal. There’s still another source of CO2.

We’re in a box. And like Ross Perot’s crazy aunt in the attic, no one’s talking about it. In the last year, Americans, overruling their politicians, have decided to face the global warming issue. But facing global warming means constraining CO2. Constraining CO2 requires either carbon storage or switching to a carbon-free fuel, probably both. Those measures will be necessary regardless of any gains we might make in efficient use of energy. Carbon capture and storage won’t be economically feasible on an industrial scale for years. Fuel switching is not feasible either, given the long lead time and high capital cost required for a new nuclear powerplant. And coal and nuclear are our only baseload generation options today. Some day we may have other options, but these are all we have for at least the next several decades. In the meantime, electricity demand will continue to grow—at least 28% and possibly as much as 54% by 2030, according to EIA. We’ll have to build about 292,000 MW of new generation capacity by then, 54% of it coal-fired, 36% gas-fired, EIA adds. We need policies today that will encourage solutions to these conundrums on a scale that will make a real difference in a short time. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 doesn’t begin to do that.

Denial that we have a problem has left this addicted nation in a policy box, with decades more of fossil-fuel dependency ahead of us. Any recovering alcoholic knows you don’t escape addiction without making painful and costly changes in your way of life. As a recovering alcoholic, President Bush knows that. As a politician, he would not tell us so. None of our “leaders” are telling us so.

Americans have decided to deal with global warming and have accepted that doing so means we must reduce the use of fossil fuels. But Americans as a whole have not yet realized how much that choice will cost. It will require lifestyle changes and it will take money out of our pockets. The crazy aunt is screaming for attention in the attic. Who is going to talk about her? Who will do something about her?

June 1, 2007

To Chris Wilcox:

President Bush has spoken openly about his abuse of alcohol and how a religious experience in 1986 helped him to stop it. Achieving sobriety requires great and commendable self-control of an alcoholic, and I sincerely applaud President Bush’s achievement of this personal victory. An alcoholic who is no longer active remains an alcoholic, however, to the end of life. This is accepted wisdom in the 12-Step community. It is no insult to call an alcoholic who has achieved sobriety a recovering alcoholic. Many recovering alcoholics struggle daily with their addiction, and know exactly what I am saying in this blog.

Thomas F. Armistead
ENR

June 1, 2007

To Joseph Wetherbee:

We have no options for rapid, large-scale application to our energy needs that do not either emit carbon dioxide or cost more than those that emit carbon dioxide. None. We are in a box because our current energy policies tie us to fossil fuels by allowing them to be the cheapest of alternatives. Generating electricity requires coal and natural gas in the U.S., and those fuels both emit CO2. Distilling ethanol requires energy, which also means fossil fuels, which emit CO2. Nuclear and hydroelectric generation are carbon-free, but we can’t add substantially to our nuclear and hydroelectric base in a few years. Entirely apart from all that, making ethanol from corn has contributed to increased prices for corn and for products—tortillas, animal feed, whatever—made from corn. We are in a box, and we won’t escape it until non-fossil fuels are cheaper than fossil fuels and we can produce the alternative fuels without emitting carbon dioxide in the process.

Thomas F. Armistead
ENR

May 30, 2007

I really enjoyed your commentary on the subject until the very end. You wrote "as a recovering alcoholic, President Bush knows that." This comment was not only a cheap shot, it was unnecessary. I am disgusted that you would end a nicely written article with an unnecessary cheap shot that's not even a true statement I might add. You should take more pride in your writing.

Chris Wilcox
Purdue University

May 29, 2007

Hear! Hear!

Most people, and especially polititians, have no good concept of energy processes... "Let's switch to all-electric cars!" "We can run our engines on corn!". No concept of end-to-end inputs, wastes, or costs. What do you have to say about ethanol and the idea that we can convert our transportation systems to electricity?

Joseph Wetherbee

May 29, 2007

Hydropower and Geothermal are also "baseload generation options", although somewhat limited.

Hydrogen is a bulky fuel. When compressed to 10,000 psi, it only has 1/5 the energy, per unit volume, of gasoline. Liquid H2 has only 1/4 the energy of gasoline. All proposed H2 storage methods are expensive and heavy. H2 is the smallest molecule, leakage is a major problem, and H2 can diffuse through many materials and embrittles steel.

There are many ways of producing H2, all of them expensive and inefficient. Water electrolysis is only 60% efficient, fuel cells only 50%, add in the energy to compress or liquify H2 for storage, and overall efficiency is less than 24%. Compare that with 85% efficiency for charger and batteries. Why waste electricity with H2, when far more efficient and cheaper options are available? H2 is more costly per mile and electricity is much cheaper per mile when compared to gasoline. H2 will always be more expensive than electricity.

PEM fuel cells are extravegantly expensive, at $5 per watt they are more costly than solar power. (and fuel for solar is free!) The PEM fuel cell membranes are short lived, requiring expensive replacement after a few years use.

While internal combustion engines can run on H2, it makes a poor fuel. Power output is reduced, octane ratings are low, and steel embrittlement is a hazard. IC engines are much less efficient than fuel cells, which would waste expensive H2.

The biggest problem for H2 proponents is to get everyone else to ignore all the other options that are cheaper, cleaner, and more efficient than H2.

Battery electric cars are much more efficient, a fraction of the price, and much safer than H2 cars. Automated guideways could provide electric power "on the go" for all cars, and would eliminate the electric car "short range long trip slow recharge" problem. Plug-in Electric Hybrids could also dramatically reduce fossil fuel consumption by using much cheaper electricity.

CM

May 29, 2007

I agree with Mr. Fellenzer in that we should be building large nuclear plants as quickly as possible. I would go further in siting some of these near our western coalfields where the excess power generated by the nuclear plant could be used to run coal liquefaction plants to produce synthetic petroleum and methanol products for transportation fuels.

I also agree with Mr. Wisner that politics should be left out of ENR, but reformed crack-heads like Mr. Armistice might not agree.

Bryan

May 29, 2007

I feel your story is very one-sided because there is no mention on another path:

1. Use wind power to generate electricity that will convert water to Hydrogen and Oxygen.
2. Store the Hydrogen as a compressed gas. (Find some use for the Oxygen or flare it , for now). 3. Use the Hyrogen as a reservoir to produce electicity when the wind is not sufficient to satisfy peak demand. 4. Use the hot water byproduct to heat houses, plants, etc.

Good idea or not, this should have been addressed in your article.

M. George Puziak

May 25, 2007

Tell the crazy aunt in the attic to check this out:

"I've been called everything from the village idiot to the mad scientist," said Mike Strizki, Solar/Hydrogen homeowner.

Mike's home is not your typical home.

"I don't have to worry about power failures here. Fuel deliveries. I don't have to worry if that fuel truck doesn't come up that driveway," Mike said.

That's because Strizki lives in the nation's first solar-hydrogen house.

William Van Ryzin, AIA
ROSEN GROUP
Summit, N.J.

May 25, 2007

Does Ross Perot really have a crazy aunt living in his attic??

Will Burr
Indiana Wire Products

May 25, 2007

I am not versed on fuels or environment protection, but I am one of those that are hoping for cleaner technologies to take the lead over burning fossil fuels. The prototypes of hydrogen cars show clearly that there's been investment in the area, and I suppose also studies that confirm the viability of such cars (although those are based on the creation of a net of fueling stations, which by itself will require a good dose of effort). I hope that it's not just hype. More than anything, I believe scientists will develop better engines -- hydrogen, electric, hybrid, solar, ethanol or other --, and technology has been evolving impressively towards that. On the other hand, changing one's way of life can mean evolution. I don't see the point of persisting in something everyone knows it's bad just to maintain a way of life, it smells stubbornness. Of course investments and costs are involved, but the objective is rewarding and a necessary step. Other than long-term reformation of our cars' fuel system, an important step towards changing America's dependence on fossil fuels would be achieved by improving existing public transportation. It's unbelievable that train lines from Connecticut to NYC, for example, don't offer a minimum of comfort to users -- commuting on comfortable trains would surely be an incentive to leaving thousands of cars at home everyday. No need to compare to other developed countries' railway systems, America could do a better job. And what about the absence of public transportation in most cities? There's no alternative to moving around in cars, and I am sure lots of people would feel far more prone to using cheaper transportation these days.

Renato Jacobsen

May 25, 2007

I have realistically worked on renewable Energy projects and conservation for 40 years. It is detailed , laborious work. It is picking up penneys to make one hundred. There is no free lunch! No quick fix! NO SILVER BULLET

Douglas Wilke PE/RA

May 25, 2007

Hydrogen, a great engine fuel, if we could only segregate it,liquify and distribute it economically. A better choice by far is Methanol. Granted,an easy source is nat. gas, but it can be manufactured. Our bodies do it every day. It has a nat.octane 93. Too bad the cars of the last 20 yrs can't use it, it runs too hot for alum & plastic.

James Amrine

May 24, 2007

You say "...and our only option is nuclear!!! Daa--- well yes and it happens to be the best of all in all respects!!! WE should be building many one Gigawatt units and siting them near the load. The Shoreham plant was the best ever!! Design, economy and location an optimum!! Ignorance prevailed!! Now it is proposed by NYRI and approved by US Dept of Energy to build a real energy waster 200 mile transmission line from Utica NY to NYC from an unkown source! Where are the old engineer economists? The energy cost equivalents including converter, inverter, RWs, line losses and energy costs of maintenance is prohibitive!! So just quantify these costs and you have proof. Let's get on with Nuclear ASAP. It is the option. We have 55 Nuclear Subs keeping our enemies at bay!

Archie Fellenzer P.E.

Mike DiPonio

Why does your energy analysis go in circles and argue fundamentals? Keep it simple as follows: !. Forget hydrogen! There is no such energy econony.

2. Nuclear is the optimum for our energy use. Get at building Nuke power plants! We ahve plenty of uranium, an optimun fuel in all respects. It is safe and clean!

Archie Fellenzer P.E.

May 24, 2007

Global Warming may be real, but global warming due to a greenhouse effect is at best an unproven theory and most probably a hoax. Climate fluctuations have occurred throughout history. The current warming trend is part of that cycle. Trying to stop or slow it is ridiculous ... equivalent to the Swiss monks who were sent out stop the glacier that was advancing towards their town during the little ice age in the 1400's. Humans can't change the earth's climate, on purpose or by accident. Nor can they stop the polar ice caps from melting (the ice caps on Mars which are melting at the same time as the earth's climate is warming ... get the picture!)

Mike DiPonio

May 24, 2007

Dr. Mohsen Shabana, an Egyptian-born scientist who is one of General Motors' chief engineers says "The next century will be shaped by how effectively and smoothly the world introduces hydrogen as a transportation fuel - we must introduce a renewable energy source in order for world economies to grow, for the growing middle class in emerging markets to have increased wealth, and for people who have dreamed all their lives of owning a vehicle to finally realize that dream." He added ˜GM's vision of reinventing the automobile with a fusion of technologies that includes advanced materials, electronic controls, computer software and advanced propulsion." Shabana explained: "GM's goal is to design and validate a fuel cell propulsion system by 2010." Validate by 2010? How about mass produce these cars by 2010. This assumes GM will be around to make cars in 2010. Dr. Shabana's coments are not groundbraking though they say all the right things but to those who have followed these sorts of press releases its more 'yada yada' and little in the way of real and measurable progress.

The car of the future, the car GM needs to plan for is a Supercar. It is an electric car powered by hydrogen using fuel cells. It will some day travel on an elevated highway, unencumbered by the traffic and congestion below. Thus a Supercar will travel the superhighway for the 21st Century, the Skyway. This vision is not new. GM laid out this exact vision at the 1950 Worlds Fair. GM imagined a future of automated cars on elevated highways. I can only conclude that GM has lost its way.

If the solution can be found then technology is the answer. What make this futuristic vision possible today are recent advancements and technologies that converge at this particular time. One of the emerging technologies is fuel cells. (the hybrid is an intermediate tech) They use hydrogen, which is the most flexible energy carrier of all, since it can be derived from any hydrocarbon or from water using virtually any energy source, and can be used to run an internal combustion engine, power a rocket or be converted directly into electricity.

Other trends, seemingly unrelated demand changes, they are such that we will be forced to embrace the changes in order to keep the "technological momentum" of the car sustainable. Necessity being the mother of invention, the needs for a new transport system is enormous: One of these trends includes the miserable condition of our road infrastructure. While automation prospers our roads and bridges rot! Roads, bridges, the total infrastructure for cars, trains, and subways are in need of a total reconstruction. The cost of this repair is so enormous as to be incalculable. This is because for over a century the volume of new construction has defined progress and previous generations were prolific at delivering the goods. Thus with each new bridge or road built in the last 100 years, the cost of its continual maintenance and eventual replacement has often been deferred by other pressing needs, and the future replacement costs grow exponentially while the initial cost in current dollars seems insignificant.

Safety being paramount is another issue. In the US there are over 42,000 traffic related deaths and 5 million injuries yearly. Worldwide, 1.2 million die in traffic related accidents. This carnage can no longer be ignored.

Another trend are congested roads, they are an abomination. The time and money wasted yearly in the US alone, has been calculated at $100 Billion. Where one hundred years ago traffic in London moved at 15 km per hour, now cars that can travel at 200-km/hr travel at only 14-km/hr. This is progress? New roads instead of alleviating congestion seem to have the opposite effect. Thus simply building more roads has not proven to be the answer. Surface highways are destructive to the environment. They form a scar upon the land. Public funding to build them can only defer resources that must be eventually spent to maintain what we already have.

Global Warming or climate change caused by the burning of hydrocarbon based fuel is another big concern. Wind will some day provide most of the power to run our cars and heat or cool our homes. The current shortage of oil and climate disruptions effecting supply is a vivid warning that we ignore the problems at our peril.

FG

May 24, 2007

The reference and disrespectful treatment of the president saddens me. Until today I thought of ENR as a leading voice for the engineering community. But now it is clear that it is nothing more than just another left-leaning rag. What a shame.

By the way for those who are really interrested in the engineering and thermodynamic challenges of the Hydrogen economy, there are some very good articles around. Google on David Barber formerly of Argonne.

R.S. Wisner, P.E.