Greg Blencoe and Dr. James G. Blencoe work on hydrogen problems
Greg Blencoe, CEO of Hydrogen Discoveries, asks us to "do the right thing" in his message urging us to begin our transition into the hydrogen economy now. He believes that the transition from fossil-fuels to hydrogen will cost $100 trillion, and can be done by the year 2020.
We all know that it takes power to release the hydrogen trapped in various forms on the earth, and the paper outlines the use of solar and wind power for the job. The Blencoe duo also have proposals for the safe storage of hydrogen on vehicles and the safe transportation of hydrogen to refueling stations.
Call me a bit skeptical on whether this is actually doable. I did read it, and I am not ready to give up on hydrogen as a fuel carrier, but, I don't think that the replacement of all gasoline, natural gas, diesel and coal will come from hydrogen. We will need the electricity generated from solar and wind for other uses as well, not just the releasing of hydrogen. Granted, I am not an expert on the subject, and I'm sure they are more knowledgeable on the subject than I am. Draw your own conclusions.
[Source: Hydrogen Discoveries via Treehugger]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Lucien Takar 9:09PM (2/11/2007)
I don't see it as being a total replacement for all fuels. But even if it is doable, I don't see it happening by 2020. Auto manufacturers are unnecessarily slow when it comes to releasing new vehicles that use alternative fuels. Like the EV1, we already know it is doable, but they just don't want to take the leap in anything that could hurt or slow their sales. It will take years or even decades for some manufactures just to bring a single line of hybrid cars to market. Hybrid cars are not the future; they are the NOW. So why doesn't everyone make them? Because it won't blow over well with the oil industry if everyone started using less gas.
Reply
Dave 9:15PM (2/11/2007)
The actual estimated cost mentioned in the paper is $1 trillion, not $100 trillion.
Reply
Peter 10:33PM (2/11/2007)
The main thrust of the paper is that after a $1 trillion investment, hydrogen cars could match the fuel costs of today's gasoline cars. The problem is, most people will not see that as progress. The market wants lower fuel costs, not the status quo.
For environmentalists, the emissions reductions might justify the investment. But environmentalists are a small minority.
Reply
Mark 12:51AM (2/12/2007)
I am getting the feeling that the wool is being pulled over our eyes somewhere along the line here. They can't even be bothered to keep their units consistent - it's a gallon of this, a pound of that and a kilo of the other.
One thing that does fall out of their maths that they don't really draw enough attention to is that in order to produce 1 kilo of hydrogen (to travel 56 miles) the car needs to be carrying 13.2lbs of Magnesium Hydride and at least 32lbs of water, which would be turned into 45lbs of Magnesium Hydroxide after the Hydrogen is released (see note 12 - my chemistry is a long time ago, prove me wrong. You see what I mean about the units.) So the fuel weight for a 500 mile range is getting on for 500lbs. Lighter than a Tesla battery pack, I know, but you'd think this might factor into their estimated mileage calculation, which looks pretty shaky.
Reply
Tim 2:10PM (2/12/2007)
The “Hydrogen Economy” is D.O.A. GET OVER IT!!!
Energy storage by hydrogen is only 25 % efficient. The remaining 75% are lost in electrolysis, compression or liquefaction, transportation and fuel cell and we have no hydrogen infrastructure for this bomb. Energy companies are funding this garbage “research” in order to change our addiction from one of their drugs (OIL) to another (Hydrogen) which comes from "Natural" Gas at 25% the cost of producing it via electrolysis. Big Energy (Oil) knows that we can’t economically produce, pressurize, store, and transfer Hydrogen at home so they want us to become addicted to a product that they will ultimately supply.
Bottom line is that using first Aluminum and/or Hydrogen to store electrons to power an electric vehicle is over 4X LESS efficient than just using batteries. http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
We’ve already spent $BILLIONS worldwide looking at Hydrogen only to learn that Like the Atkins Diet it’s bad science! It’s time now to put away this wasteful toy and get to work concentrating on renewable energy sources and not just storage methods such as Hydrogen. We’ve wasted enough time, intellectual energy and money on the Hydrogen wild goose chase. Been There! Looked at it! It’s too dangerous, expensive and inefficient to make any sense. NEXT!!!
Reply
moogy 11:10AM (2/12/2007)
Hydrogen is a business from people that still want to make money on us. It has been proposed to keep the infrastructure that is already in place.
Electric cars are a better answer to are problem.
We can take the energy directly from the sun, wind, waves, etc. and put it in to batteries. Not waste it on making hydrogen then combusting it again to make energy.
Reply
bdeflaviis 11:41AM (2/12/2007)
Moogy is a bit off. The cases for hydrogen are twofold. He's right, combusting hydrogen doesn't make sense. It relies on the same old inefficient ICE, plus it's not completely pollution free. That's why you need fuel cells. (2-3x efficiency)
Two, batteries have serious limitations. A hybrid fuel cell vehicle will give drives the best of both worlds.
Reply
Howard Lee Harkness 11:53AM (2/12/2007)
"Greg Blencoe, CEO of Hydrogen Discoveries, asks us to..."
...do the thing that will make the most money for him.
Using hydrogen to power cars is insanely stupid. I know of at least 2 currently available technologies that are vastly superior in ever conceivable way. There are probably many more than that. Even the mediocre fuel ethanol beats hydrogen on every count.
Reply
CM 9:48PM (2/14/2007)
Blencoe & Co. is planning to solve the storage problem by using a magnesium hydride/water slurry, then recycle the spent "milk of magnesia" back into new fuel. So, how much electrical energy does it take to convert enough "milk of magnesia" back into enough magnesium hydroxide to store 1 Kg of hydrogen? His paper lists the "best current estimate" at 85 Kwh. That is enough electrical energy to propel a typical electric car approx. 425 miles.
So, how far will 1 Kg of H2 propel you? His paper mentioned the Toyota prototype FCHV, using a Highlander chassis, as getting 53 miles per Kg of H2. Some other prototypes do a better, some lightweight hybrid fuel cells nearing 90 miles per Kg.
The conclusion is obvious - battery electrics are 4x more efficient than H2 FC.
As for cost, the best H2 proponents can hope for is to match the cost of fossil fuels, but electricity is already far cheaper than H2, and always will be.
Reply
Chris M 5:03AM (2/13/2007)
The "Hydrogen Discovery" group proposes to solve the H2 storage problem by using a magnesium hydride and water slurry, then heating it to form hydrogen and "milk of magnesia", and recycle.
How much electricity does it take to recycle enough "milk of magnesia" to produce 1 Kg of H2? In his paper the "best current estimate is 85 Kwh". That amount of electrical energy can propel a typical electric car approx. 425 miles.
1 Kg of H2 can propel the Toyota FCHV prototype 53 miles, some fuel cell cars do a bit better at 80 to 100 miles per Kg H2.
Battery electrics use far less electrical energy than the proposed "hydrogen economy". Electricity also costs far less than H2, and always will.
Reply