Future tense: How a solar-hydrogen economy could provide us with all the energy we need
Honda FCX Clarity - Click above for high-res gallery
What one energy source has the ability to – in the long term – supply the people of the world with all of the energy they need in an reliable and renewable manner? According to Derek Abbott, professor of electrical engineering at the University of Adelaide in Australia, there is only one possible answer: solar-hydrogen.
Solar-hydrogen means using solar power to generate electricity and then using the electricity to electrolyze water to generate hydrogen when necessary – for example, to run automobiles on hydrogen power. Abbott believes that solar-hydrogen could one day produce about 70 percent of the world's energy requirements, and he's done some math over on PhysOrg that he says proves him right. The short version: the solar energy that hits the earth (and is not reflected or absorbed by clouds) is "more than 5,000 times our present global energy consumption."
Aside from the sustainability angle, solar-hydrogen beats all other energy sources on economic grounds, Abott believes. His preferred method of capturing the energy of the sun is solar thermal collectors. Here's how he thinks it'll work in the coming decades:
Governments should begin by setting up sizable solar farms that supplement existing grid electricity and provide enough hydrogen to power buses. Enthusiasts will then buy hydrogen cars, retrofit existing cars, and refuel at bus depots. Then things will grow from there. You gotta start somewhere.
Abbott's other reasons for choosing H2 over battery-powered electrics include: fewer chemicals and toxic waste due to lack of batteries and that "gasoline combustion engines can be retrofitted to run on hydrogen, and the car manufacturing industry has infrastructure tailored to combustion technology." Hmm, maybe he should read Greenlings.
[Source: PhysOrg]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Mark Mitchell 8:13PM (8/24/2009)
Which part of the math the professor use to find out how many trillions of dollars all this would cost in the years after it would "start somewhere"?
Reply
Nozferat 9:15PM (8/24/2009)
Probably the same math that was used that started the petroleum and oil infrastructure you seem to take for granted and use everyday to improve your life up till today.
Why do people go around thinking a drastic change in energy improvements and better infrastructure is going to be free?
Perhaps it's this thinking that has prevented greedy no good corporations to languish so much and not do the right thing all these decades. Now it's going to cost even more to clean up the mess that's been created because of it.
polo 9:57PM (8/24/2009)
"Probably the same math that was used that started the petroleum and oil infrastructure you seem to take for granted and use everyday to improve your life up till today."
I think the point was why does this article focus on one of the most inefficient means of vehicle propulsion (electricity > hydrogen > electricity > propulsion)? Why not use EVs? Then you only need 1/3rd the energy that would be require for hydrogen, the tech already exists and becoming available to consumers, and the basic infastructure is already in place...We can overcome the range limitations with larger battery packs and lower the cost with mass production and advances in tech. But you can't eliminate the inefficiency of hydrogen.
I found another article on that same site. Maybe this guy Abbot should read it:
Why a hydrogen economy doesn't make sense
December 11th, 2006
In a recent study, fuel cell expert Ulf Bossel explains that a hydrogen economy is a wasteful economy. The large amount of energy required to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds (water, natural gas, biomass), package the light gas by compression or liquefaction, transfer the energy carrier to the user, plus the energy lost when it is converted to useful electricity with fuel cells, leaves around 25% for practical use — an unacceptable value to run an economy in a sustainable future. Only niche applications like submarines and spacecraft might use hydrogen.
“More energy is needed to isolate hydrogen from natural compounds than can ever be recovered from its use,” Bossel explains to PhysOrg.com. “Therefore, making the new chemical energy carrier form natural gas would not make sense, as it would increase the gas consumption and the emission of CO2. Instead, the dwindling fossil fuel reserves must be replaced by energy from renewable sources.”
While scientists from around the world have been piecing together the technology, Bossel has taken a broader look at how realistic the use of hydrogen for carrying energy would be. His overall energy analysis of a hydrogen economy demonstrates that high energy losses inevitably resulting from the laws of physics mean that a hydrogen economy will never make sense.
“The advantages of hydrogen praised by journalists (non-toxic, burns to water, abundance of hydrogen in the Universe, etc.) are misleading, because the production of hydrogen depends on the availability of energy and water, both of which are increasingly rare and may become political issues, as much as oil and natural gas are today,” says Bossel.
“There is a lot of money in the field now,” he continues. “I think that it was a mistake to start with a ‘Presidential Initiative’ rather with a thorough analysis like this one. Huge sums of money were committed too soon, and now even good scientists prostitute themselves to obtain research money for their students or laboratories—otherwise, they risk being fired. But the laws of physics are eternal and cannot be changed with additional research, venture capital or majority votes.”
Even though many scientists, including Bossel, predict that the technology to establish a hydrogen economy is within reach, its implementation will never make economic sense, Bossel argues.
“In the market place, hydrogen would have to compete with its own source of energy, i.e. with ("green") electricity from the grid,” he says. “For this reason, creating a new energy carrier is a no-win solution. We have to solve an energy problem not an energy carrier problem."
A wasteful process
In his study, Bossel analyzes a variety of methods for synthesizing, storing and delivering hydrogen, since no single method has yet proven superior. To start, hydrogen is not naturally occurring, but must be synthesized.
“Ultimately, hydrogen has to be made from renewable electricity by electrolysis of water in the beginning,” Bossel explains, “and then its energy content is converted back to electricity with fuel cells when it’s recombined with oxygen to water. Separating hydrogen from water by electrolysis requires massive amounts of electrical energy and substantial amounts of water.”
Also, hydrogen is not a source of energy, but only a carrier of energy. As a carrier, it plays a role similar to that of water in a hydraulic heating system or electrons in a copper wire. When delivering hydrogen, whether by truck or pipeline, the energy costs are several times that for established energy carriers like natural gas or gasoline. Even the most efficient fuel cells cannot recover these losses, Bossel found. For comparison, the "wind-to-wheel" efficiency is at least three times greater for electric cars than for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles.
Another headache is storage. When storing liquid hydrogen, some gas must be allowed to evaporate for safety reasons—meaning that after two weeks, a car would lose half of its fuel, even when not being driven. Also, Bossel found that the output-input efficiency cannot be much above 30%, while advanced batteries have a cycle efficiency of above 80%. In every situation, Bossel found, the energy input outweighs the energy delivered by a factor of three to four.
“About four renewable power plants have to be erected to deliver the output of one plant to stationary or mobile consumers via hydrogen and fuel cells,” he writes. “Three of these plants generate energy to cover the parasitic losses of the hydrogen economy while only one of them is producing useful energy.”
This fact, he shows, cannot be changed with improvements in technology. Rather, the one-quarter efficiency is based on necessary processes of a hydrogen economy and the properties of hydrogen itself, e.g. its low density and extremely low boiling point, which increase the energy cost of compression or liquefaction and the investment costs of storage.
The alternative: An electron economy
Economically, the wasteful hydrogen process translates to electricity from hydrogen and fuel cells costing at least four times as much as electricity from the grid. In fact, electricity would be much more efficiently used if it were sent directly to the appliances instead. If the original electricity could be directly supplied by wires, as much as 90% could be used in applications.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html
Nozferat 1:47AM (8/25/2009)
You're making a huge assumption that people should drop EV's and only go for hydrogen. Or visa versa....of which either approach is dumb.
Both need to be advanced.
There are many advancements in H2 production and storage that will probably see fruition in the next 5-15 years...perhaps too long for some of you but definitely not for the next generation of devices, energy issues, and what not.
Material science advances are useful and applicable to both technologies. An electricity economy cannot and will not be able to run the world's energy demands but for perhaps only a partial amount of what is needed.
Mark Mitchell 10:24AM (8/25/2009)
Certainly the current motor fuel infrastructure is enormous and cost fearsome amouts of money--over a century of developement. My point is that to supplant it in any consequential manner will be stupendously expensive in the short, medium, and long run. Which is okay really if any putative changeover happens organically without the lash of goverment fiat. For instance DVDs supplanted videocasettes in just a few years without government influence and likely DVDs will be replaced by downloads as technology evolves. As vehicle technologies evolve fueling alternatives will have to exhibit at least some economic advantages apart from a single-minded servicing of environmental policy. Regardless of however massively draconian governemental pressure turns out to be the general public will not look kindly upon flinging the huge long-standing motor fuels infrastructure willy-nilly on the ash heap of history. One may think the public's preference for gradualism is evidence of ignorance, immaturity, and environmental irresponsibility but this tendency will nevertheless have to be a salient consideration of all contending parties, political, economic, and technological, regardless of their own agendas.
Nozferat 1:51PM (8/25/2009)
The technology behind making hydrogen mainstream is going to me revolutionary...not evolutionary. Anytime this has happened, it's been met with huge resistance and a lot of cost.
So it's no surprise people want to take the path of least resistance for a quick fix.
polo 4:16PM (8/25/2009)
"The technology behind making hydrogen mainstream is going to me revolutionary...not evolutionary. Anytime this has happened, it's been met with huge resistance and a lot of cost.
So it's no surprise people want to take the path of least resistance for a quick fix."
Cut the cliches and respond to what people actually post. Hydrogen cars are not realistic or practical. At every angle their are huge issues with cost - cost for the fuel cells which cost hundreds of thousands, cost for the fuel stations which are significantly more expensive than even fast charging EV stations, cost to provide the energy and water (both are scarce) to create your volatile hydrogen..all for something absolutely NO inherent benefits.
Right now hydrogen's only claimed benefit is range....but that is a lie. You can't buy a hydrogen car at an affordable price with a better range than an EV...because your affordable hydrogen car doesn't even EXIST.And lower battery prices along with higher-density-battery packs will eliminate even that benefit. So why should anyone waste their time?? It only makes sense if your only motivating interest is keeping alive the oil cartel who owns the natural gas that is widely used to create your hydrogen.
READ the article I posted. It thoroughly lays out why hydrogen is not only not a "fix" (quick or long-term) but it is a regressive technology that could pose major consequences if it is attempted to be widely adopted. Maybe if someone invents some new cheap form of energy and water production it would not matter, but as of right now our grid, water, and financial resources CANNOT support your hydrogen fantasy.
Nozferat 1:04AM (8/27/2009)
What cliches?
I'm not sure if you're just narrow-minded by nature or simply doing it on purpose to get a rise?
Either way, it's pretty stupid.
Take off your tin-foil hat with this oil cartel nonsense. As if the electricity corporations aren't in the business of energy and profit. What planet do you live on?
Get real.
Earl Killian 8:34PM (8/24/2009)
The U.S. will drive about 3.4 trillion miles in 2030. At 70 mi/kgH2 that requires 48 billion kgH2/yr. At 50 kWh/kgH2 (an optimistic goal for 10,000 psi H2) this requires 2415 TWh/yr and the hydrolysis plant, and 2614 TWh at the solar farm. A solar farm to produce this much power would measure 10,206 sq.mi.
What if we chose to do it with electric cars instead. Start with the same 3.4 trillion miles. At 250 Wh/mi motor-to-wheels, 287 Wh/mi plug-to-wheels, and 311 Wh/mi plant-to-wheels, this comes to 1052 TWh at the solar farm. The land area required is 4,106 sq.mi.
When I do the calculations on cost, fueling a FCV with hydrogen costs more than three times as much as charging from the grid, so just how is this more economic?
So tell me Professor Abbott, why should we build 6,100 sq.mi. of additional solar farm to do hydrogen instead of electric?
Professor Abbott's reasons not to do electric cars are laughable. Fuel cells are more expensive than batteries and don't last as many years. Modern batteries are not toxic, and they will be recycled just as lead-acid batteries today (97-98% recycle rate).
Reply
Nozferat 9:17PM (8/24/2009)
Yes and we're still talking on "brick" cell phones and flying with prop planes right?
What the hell is wrong with some of you?
Ernie 3:15AM (8/25/2009)
@Nozferat:
So, because battery technology has already advanced to the point where it meets our needs except for cost, you think we should spend three times as much money... not on the development of the end-user product, but on the *fuel*? So we can do what, fuel up in 2 minutes instead of 10?
That's a tricky proposition there... let me think.
I think that the associated costs of hydrogen just aren't worth it. Fuel cell stacks are massively more expensive than batteries as it is now. Yes, research will bring that down. It will bring both of them down. And batteries are already way ahead in the game. They're what power laptops and cordless drills today. What do fuel cells power today? Space shuttles.
And honestly, so what if it takes half an hour to get a full charge? That's what lunch breaks are for. Install the chargers at freeway rest stops, and you're done. Denny's just solved your infrastructure problem. Even Chevron doesn't want to take on hydrogen fuel stations.
meme 1:57PM (8/25/2009)
It's worse than that. He's advocating for hydrogen ICEs, which are less efficient than FCVs (and way underpowered compared to normal ICEs).
Also, your price comparison is looking at natural gas H2. Electrolysis H2 is even more expensive than natural gas H2. And solar electrolysis H2, even more expensive.
Nozferat 1:48PM (8/25/2009)
What do you plan to use? An electric 747-400 to fly over to Asia?
And where exactly do you think we are ready with electricity? Oh that's right...all those plug-ins we have on the roads...and the infrastructure to feed their energy needs...oh yes that's right. We're ready......NOT.
The difference between you and I is that I don't have a problem with development and progress on both fronts...you do.
It ceases to amaze me how short-sighted people are when it comes to new technologies that are breaking ground due to radically new material science advancements....all the while these same people are using the current technologies that a mere 15-20 years either didn't exist or was criticized back then because it was completely out of reach.
Are you folks that much in denial?
Earl Killian 5:04PM (8/25/2009)
Nozferat, you are remarkably ill-informed. There is ample electricity available at nighttime to charge electric vehicles. One of the U.S. Department of Energy’s labs, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, looked at how many plug-in vehicles today’s grid support without modification, and concluded that 73% of cars, pickup trucks, SUVs, and vans could be supported by the existing infrastructure.
The original article stated, "there is only one possible answer: solar-hydrogen." Why then did you not direct your tantrum outburst* to the to Dr. Abbott's assertion, instead of to this thread? (*The one where you wrote, "The difference between you and I is that I don't have a problem with development and progress on both fronts...you do.")
The purpose of my comment was to rebut the false assertion that there is only one possible answer by pointing out that the solution Dr. Abbott proposes is markedly inferior to the EV solution for cars. The numbers make clear that the EV solution is 2-4x better than the hydrogen solution in terms of land use, and 3+ times better in terms of cost. The land use and cost advantages are pretty much inherent, as I used already generous assumptions for FCVs (e.g. I used program goals that have not yet been achieved). Some basic physics is involved as well, as the HHV/LHV ratio of hydrogen is 1.182, which means that you guaranteed that 18% of your energy to create H2 from liquid water is going to be wasted.
I do indeed think there is a place for non-electric solutions for fueling things other than passenger vehicles, but the original article did have a lot to say about cars, and clearly that was a focus, and the "only one possible solution" claim clearly needed to be shown false.
Nozferat 5:28PM (8/25/2009)
Killian,
I think you have a reading comprehension problem. I said that both technologies are required in the future because one cannot do all for the other and visa versa.
You are limiting your application of these technologies to one type of use...I'm not. Why is that so hard to understand? Seriously..
Nozferat 5:30PM (8/25/2009)
MEME:
I'm not saying that....YOU are saying that. Please make sure you make that clear in your subsequent posts so people don't' get the idea that you are shoving your ideas down other people's throats and regurgitating them.
Chris M 9:47PM (8/25/2009)
Typical of egghead professors to ignore issues of cost and efficiency, unless of course they teach economics or business management. When figuring abstract theories one can ignore such pedestrian issues as "cost" and "efficiency", but not for anything to be done in the real world.
It's bad enough to advocate solar H2 for H2 fuel cells with their higher cost and 1/3 the efficiency of batteries, but it is really stupid and shows a severe lack of understanding to advocate H2 fueled internal combustion engines. Due to the poor efficiency, the range of H1-ICE vehicles is short and operating costs are high, and it still involves use of motor oils for lubricants and the production of nitrous oxides. Ironically, Abbott downplays the use of windmills because of the oils used to lubricate them! Using electricity to electrolyze hydrogen, then burning it in an IC engine would have an overall efficiency around 7% - compared to EV efficiency of 77%. Great, 11x more solar panels, anyone?
Noz, I see you're back with your standard strawmen. Nobody is advocating "no change" or "no research" and certainly not "no improvements". What we are advocating is choosing the more efficient and more cost effective improvements. Advocating a H2 future like Abbott proposes is like advocating satellite phones instead of cell phones - sure, sattelite phones may work where cell phones are out of touch, but they are a lot more expensive, and with higher power requirements are stuck at the "brick" size.
Also, nobody is advocating battery powered 747s, at least not until batteries are greatly improved. But we don't see H2 fueled 747s either, as the fuel tanks would be larger than the fuselage, and the fuel costs much higher.
Nozferat 1:19AM (8/27/2009)
Ah Chris M is back with his lying and flip flopping. Plus he uses the strawman excuse as his latest form of attack...nice.
Are you also one of those people who use all the good stuff we have today but are narcissistic and arrogant enough to think it all came out of thin air, not millions and billions of dollars of taxpayer funded money and years of research?
Or perhaps one of those who think nothing but you like will advance and everything else will just stand still? Sound familiar to you?
Do you also have a hard time understanding that both technologies have their use and applications? Or lack of understanding the advancements made in material science and H2 storage and production?
I can't take you seriously if you only advocate one side and not the other.
Sure, going with the cheaper option is great but it's extremely stupid to ignore everything else at the cost of killing progress in every other area.
With the progress made in storing H2 liquid fuel in the last 5 years (and the very rapid pace at which these new developments are occuring), I can guarantee that you'll see a liquid fueled H2 747 before you'll ever see a battery powered one. That you can be sure.
You have a complete disconnect with the efforts and costs involved in what you take for granted today. I can understand where that issue comes from with you being you are so short-sighted.
Snowdog 8:51PM (8/24/2009)
Double nuts.
Solar is the least viable ( most expensive) generation tech. So he loses before he even gets to wasting 2/3 of the energy on the crazy town hydrogen cycle.
Reply
Tim 9:38AM (8/25/2009)
I WAS going to say that H2 MAY make sense when used to store solar for power generation ON SITE and that H2 is stupid for automotive use because of efficiency losses (electrolyzing, compressing, transferring to truck, transporting, transferring to distribution tank, storing, transferring to car tank, storing and finally using in a fuel cell) not to mention the $TRILLION in all-new infrastructure (not including the cars)...
BUT Snowdog is 100% correct!
Solar THERMAL makes much more sense than H2 for solar power storage. Solar-thermal energy stored in buried liquid salt tanks and used for closed-cycle steam generators is MUCH more efficient and FAR less expensive than electrolyzing water to H2 and then using platinum fuel cells to convert it back to electricity for the grid.
Hydrogen is ONLY “green” when it pertains giant corporations bilking taxpayer “investment greenbacks” out of stupid and/or corrupt politicians. Too bad so many "progressive" politicians are stupid and/or corrupt.
Progressivism/Socialism is a mental disorder which taxes and regulates production out of existence so all are equally poor. First the Chinese, then the Soviets and now the EU and USSA.
Some retards never read history and therefore don’t learn it’s lessons. (but they have good intentions which are paving this road to Socialist hell)