ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Hope, hype and hydrogen

Posted: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 7:52 PM by Alan Boyle

Legislation to create multimillion-dollar prizes for hydrogen energy technology has been reintroduced as promised, and one of the bill's biggest boosters says it could come up for a vote "pretty quickly." But the H-Prize Act doesn't really address the energy priorities outlined in President Bush's State of the Union address - such as increased ethanol production or tougher fuel economy standards. So why not offer prizes for a wider range of energy alternatives, including ethanol and biodiesel, rather than just for hydrogen?

"The reason to do a hydrogen prize is because we need a technological breakthrough there, whereas with ethanol and biodiesel, we already have some proven technologies that work," said Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., who was the H-Prize Act's primary sponsor last year and is a co-sponsor this year.

To be sure, there are challenges attached to all the alternative energy initiatives being floated: For example, many experts say the United States can't produce enough corn to satisfy the ethanol fuel demand as well as farm and food-industry requirements, and efforts to convert waste cellulose into ethanol still face technological hurdles as high as Iowa cornstalks. Some speculate that biofuels will end up being little more than a sideshow in the energy drama.

But making the transition to a hydrogen economy is an even more speculative venture. It's true that hydrogen-driven fuel-cell cars would be the ultimate clean machines, but you'd have to build the infrastructure to produce, store and distribute the flammable gas safely. And as rocket scientist Robert Zubrin pointed out in his New Atlantis article, titled "The Hydrogen Hoax," nowadays the fuel is typically produced from natural gas or coal (fossil fuels!) using a relatively inefficient process.

A report from the National Academy of Sciences said the transition to a hydrogen economy would take "many decades" - which sounds like the same time frame required for commercially viable fusion power.

Nevertheless, Inglis and the H-Prize Act's other sponsors - as well as U.S. automakers such as GM and Ford - are hitching their hopes to a hydrogen star. Even converting natural gas to hydrogen, as inefficient as it is, could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 60 percent, Inglis maintained.

"Reforming natural gas to hydrogen is a significant step in the right direction, if you're concerned about the carbon footprint," Inglis told me.

And eventually, hydrogen could be produced from water through electrolysis, with the electricity coming from solar cells, wind turbines or next-generation nuclear reactors. The gas might even be produced commercially through bacterial digestion of wastewater, just as other types of bacteria can turn manure into methane fuel (in some cases, even powering ethanol production plants).

"My view is that we should be pursuing all these technologies - solar, more nuclear, biodiesel, ethanol, all of the above to help the No. 1 objective, which is improving the national security of the United States," Inglis said.

Inglis sees job creation in the domestic energy and auto fields as the No. 2 objective, and cleaning up the air as No. 3.

"That's the real beauty of getting all the way through to hydrogen, because you end up having a mobile source of energy that has only water vapor as an emission," he said. "The one that gets you all the way there is hydrogen, but we're going to need some breakthroughs to make it there."

The H-Prize Act would provide incentives for those breakthroughs by offering prizes ranging from $1 million to $10 million - with private support potentially boosting the top prize to $50 million. Even though control of the House passed from Republican to Democratic hands, Inglis doesn't expect much change in last year's overwhelming (416-6) support for the legislation. This year, Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., is listed as the bill's primary sponsor.

"Breakthroughs in hydrogen research and development, which I believe this bill will induce, unfortunately will not lower energy prices this year or next," Lipinski said Tuesday during a speech at the Washington Auto Show. "But it will help our country, and the world, address our long-term energy needs in a unique way. The time to act is now."

Inglis told me there are early indications that "the House leadership may be willing to take this bill up pretty quickly, within the next several months, and that's very exciting."

Last year, the H-Prize legislation got stuck in the Senate, and Inglis acknowledged that "we need to do some additional work to convince key senators to help us." But if the bill makes it through the Senate, "I think the administration will be very supportive," Inglis said.

So what's the long-term prognosis for hydrogen fuel-cell power? On one hand, you have reports about H-power breakthroughs that could make fuel cells viable even for the small-scale engines used in lawnmowers and chainsaws. On the other hand, we're hearing about battery breakthroughs that could offer alternatives to the hydrogen economy. When it comes to energy technologies, how can anybody separate the hype from the reality? You can help out by adding your comments below.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

This may be off point a bit but...

Why dont we consider in the meantime, more efficiently utilizing the energy sources we already have?  Such as every time a lamp post needs maintainance they install solar panels to absorb and recycle the expended light back into the grid. Or perhaps inserting into the building code a mandatory clause for solar panels to be installed into buildings of a certain size. Or perhaps adding charging cells to motor vehicals that charge using solar, wind, and mechanical energy generation and then install ports into parking garages and and curbside spaces to plug the car into and discharge that energy back into the grid as well. Or how about installing windmills on top of buildings in major cities. Or maybe finding a way to utilize our magneto-sphere to generate current, as well as the perpetual motion of the ocean or the constant force of gravity in order to harness and convert potential and kinetic energy. Not to mention geo-thermal, hydrogen, and nuclear options. The fact is we have abundant and limitless sources for energy that we already have the technology to harness, however our infrastructure and economy would have to be overhauled in such a drastic manner that the endeavor is all but impossible unless the corporations that have the most to lose get on board and sink their own ships.

How about this for a novel idea? Maybe we can synergistically combine exercise equipment (personal and gym) into the power grid so that everytime somebody gets on a bike or a benchpress, etc, they generate electricity and maybe they can get paid for it. This way people would have even greater incentive to exercise while also supplimenting the energy grid.

Combine that with economic synergies like cross-promotion credit points that accumulate similarily to frequent flyer miles and such as well as free-market competition with quasi-socialistic umbrella support to the consumers through government regulated insurance programs. Not to digress but the profit earnings of the insurance industry are grossly obscene when considering the fact that haveing insurance is often a mandatory legality. If the CEO of an insurance company is pulling upwards of 400 million dollars it would seem to me that some of us might be paying more than necassary for insurance or the company is not paying out claims in a transparent and ethical manner. While we are on the subject why not hold CEO's accountable by capping their salaries with a percentage of company earnigs verses a mean average of empoyee salaries so as to funnel grossly obscene profits back into the company and its employees instead of one or an exclusive few to net such a HUGE share of the wealth while leaving the rest begging for the trickle down. This would even bolster the companies moral, ingenuity and overall integrity. Seems like a win-win situation to me. Maybe I am grossly ignorant.
Brazil already has large infrastructure in place and a huge capacity to produce ethanol from sugar cane for export, But the United States imposed a 100% tariff on ethanol imports.

Meanwhile the United States gives billions in subsidies to petroleum companies.
Small correction for Brian from Topeka  --  yes, hydrogen is very unstable and very incendiary and exists naturally in our world as a gas only, not a solid or a liquid unless it is bound together with other elements, so it requires a lot of expended power to stabilize it for our use.  Oxygen, as a gas, is not flammable at all but supports burning of other materials in its presence, like hydrogen.  As one of the gases that makes up our atmosphere we need it as animals to breathe in.  We breathe carbon dioxide out, and that is 'breathed' in by plants, which breathe out the oxygen as in 'dioxide.'  Animal and plant life  must rely on each other in a kind of symbiosis in order for each to keep right on to the end of the road.

Why would we then look for hydrogen as a fuel?   Difficult to produce in timely quantities, dangerous, requiring transport by tanker car or train - I could go on and on.  Electricity is a common source of power already - we use it for heat, light, cooking, cooling, entertainment (movies, radio, ipods, wiis, tvs) and even silly things like melting snow off our driveways.  Why not for transportation?

True, we need more sources for its production, like fission, although that is a two-step dance, using the heat from the fission to boil water to make the  turbines move to produce electricity.  disposal of used rods in a fission assembly can be simple, bury them deep enough out of the way until we can load them  into spaceships and fire them into the sun; if we can invent the internal combustion engine and the nanotube battery, why not?
I liked the analogy of hydrogen being like trying to improve your finances by taking out another credit card!  

Astrochronic's idea of "Or perhaps inserting into the building code a mandatory clause for solar panels to be installed into buildings of a certain size." seems pretty cool!  Perhaps some type of regulation that it must gen. 20% of its own power?  Just enough for emergencies.
Funny... every time I hear a complaint about the "safety" of hydrogen, yet people think nothing of filling a tank with highly explosive liquid thats gushing explosive vapor from the fill hole while they stand there grumbling about the price. A hydrogen fill-up would be more like filling a propane tank, a little "phhitt" when you connect, and a little "phhitt" when you disconnect.

The infrastructure argument is just as laughable. The petroleum infrastructure we have in place now is the result of 100 years of increasing demand for fueling locations. If an automaker releases a viable hydrogen powered vehicle the infrastucture will follow.

Ideally we would make use of an onboard hydrogen generation system much like Brian Brueggeman suggested, and indeed there has been some experimentation in that direction (google it if you dont believe me).  The only problem with that senario is the powers that be will not allow a large portion of the driving population to be energy self sufficient. They depend on all that tax revenue from the gas pumps(more than 40 cents a gallon in my area).

It would irritate them terribly, untill they could figure out how to tax water.
There's a little company over here in Carefree that believes it has the answer to the hydrogen future - www.alchemix.net is their website.

On the surface it looks very interesting but I definitely don't have a Phd in Chemical Engineering to really understand it.
These discussions will not go anywhere as long as the oil cartels in the world buy out our politicians. Alternate energy source and technology to mass produce them are already available in the world, but who will benefit out of that? Only the consumers!!. Governments and big big corporations will lose billions of Dollars every year. Give these big guys some meat before you take out their bones. Unless they find a way to make money, no other source of energy will be mass produced.

Small correction for DES:

"Why would we then look for hydrogen as a fuel?   Difficult to produce in timely quantities, dangerous, requiring transport by tanker car or train - I could go on and on.  Electricity is a common source of power already - we use it for heat, light, cooking, cooling, entertainment (movies, radio, ipods, wiis, tvs) and even silly things like melting snow off our driveways.  Why not for transportation? "

Electricity is not a common source of power - it IS power. FUEL is a source of power.

How do you propose generating that electricity for all of those uses that you stated?

The point is to reduce our carbon foot print.

I am not an astrophysicist but firing large quantities of used nuclear fuel into the Sun doesn't sound like a very safe or viable alternative. Besides the fact that removing matter from earth is counter productive.  Recycling in some manner would seem more logical to me. If some process or expenditure of energy renders material un-recyclable then perhaps that process should be re-evaluated. Like I said above we already have an abundancy of sources for energy, we just don't want to utilize them.
As far as tariffs and subsidies go...

Well, our economy is based in part on petroleum. Our infrastructure is dependent on our economy and our millitary might is dependent on both. Anything that undermines one undermines the whole until we as a nation redirect our energy consumption and the means for which we extract, utilize and store that energy.

So what this really comes down to is our status as the only super power in the world. Until we adapt we cannot afford to let outside influence to our productivity undermine what little energy and economic independence we already have. Self sufficiency is good but the world economy is synergistic. The oil industry will get on board en-masse when they realize that alternative energy sources will go hand in hand with the reducing supply and demand of oil to maintain a major portion of petroleum profits especially if they get into the alternative energy game with ingenuity and capital. Unfortunately the reality is as the world becomes more stable the populace will become more consumer oriented and the world economy will become increasingly consumer based. What I mean is the "fuel" driving the economy is the redundant revolving practice of throw away technology and recycling, rationing utilities, and "lazy" simplifying technology as well as maintainance and the transient, indulgent distractions of entertainment. Building Pyramids, and long lasting, efficient machines(or other architectural and mechanical wonders) is something that only people with nothing better to do will endeavor. I guess we can only hope for a cataclysmic world war to renew our spirit of progress and discipline as moral and systematic entropy will eventually force such a correction.  Whoops I digressed, didn't I?  I will try harder not to do that.

I bow to Astrochronic's mild knucklerap -  yes , electricity is the Power I mis-represented as one of its own 'sources.'  In too much of a hurry, I guess, to edit my thoughts carefully.

 I live in a house powered (sic) by electricity  delivered by wire; I am proposing that my car also could be powered by electricity delivered by wire or cable to my neighbourhood 'service station' and paid for by me as I pay for gasoline at my regular 'fill-up' time.  If my car had nanobattery technology instead of an internal combustion engine which requires at least bi-annual inspections with replacement of sparkplugs, antifreeze, belts, oil filters, etc., I might be able to afford a small vehicle for in-city driving and a larger one for inter-city travel.

As for a 'source' for the electricity, there are many ways to pump electricity into a grid system which is already extant.  More sources would be required, which could be built as needed, fission, wind farms, waterfalls --  I live not near Niagara Falls, but my city was one of the first to have electricity delivered by Sir Adam Beck from generators at the Falls, and now I also get power from the Bruce Nuclear Station on the shore of Lake Huron.  

Astrochronic also worries about un-balancing Earth by sending tons of used radioactive uranium rods into the Sun.  Check out how many tons of various chemicals rain down upon Earth each day from space and the little amounts of used Uranium pales in comparison.  And the new space elevator they're working on would lift those rods to the orbit of the space station from where a gentle shove in the right direction would dispose of them eventually in the nuclear furnace of good old Sol.

Astrochronic's digression is right on as far as politics goes.  As democratic peoples we have the power (there's that word again) to heave out the politicians and replace them quite often.  We just have to learn how to tell the liars from the truthtellers.  

The initial investment into a hydrogen infrastructure is expected to cost $12 billion... a fraction of the several dozen billions that was spent yearly laying down cables. And you don't even need that to launch the alleged hydrogen economy: people are working on ways to use solar power + water at your house to create enough fuel to get you 100 miles at least. It is within our reach. The danger, really, is the way the substance reacts. Crashing would be dangerous. But... we will eventually be going towards a more automated driving scenario to optimize road capabilities and car performance anyways... hmm!
The blithe assumption of  Rep. Bob Inglis is that hydrogen must be the answer, all other options will be ignored for prize funding regardless of how good they may be. Prize entry should be open to any reasonable proposal to reduce fossil fuel use and reduce pollution. Alternatives to hydrogen cars include biofuels, pluggable hybrids, battery electrics, and even electric powered "guideways" for cars.

Hydrogen is a poor car fuel, it is bulky, difficult to store, and expensive to produce. People pushing the use of electrolysis for hydrogen production have no idea how inefficient it is, or how much it would cost. Pro quality electrolysis is only 60% efficient (amature electrolysis much less) and PEM fuel cells top out at 50% efficient, making an overall efficiency of 30%. On the other hand, battery charging and discharging is 85% efficient. 30% efficient, or 85% efficient - your choice. And remember that hydrogen storage tanks and PEM fuel cells, with their delicate membranes and platinum catalyst, cost much more than LiIon batteries for the same energy storage.

Proposals to run internal combustion engines via onboard electrolysis should all be promptly roundfiled. Why attempt to power a car using the worlds least efficient "electric motor"?
If it weren't for where and how much, we wouldn't be looking for a substitute for petroleum until there wasn't anymore left. We'll adjust our lifestyle way before then.
The prize should definitely be expanded to ANY technology that reduces or eliminates polution and fossil fuel use. If you think hydrogen will win, what are you afraid of? The truth is we need several solutions, at least in the short run.
Alan: Take a look at StarTech Environmental, Inc. They are profiles in the Mar`07 issue of Popular Science.  Go visit them and see their demo your self.  it sure seems like they have a solution, yet it has not been put to use on an economic scale.  What is the story with why technology like this just can't quite seem to get off the ground.  They have had this demo facility for more than 3 years!

Alan
The Universe is 95%hydrogen,The ocean is 2/3 hydrogen.
It,s difficult to extract hydrogen inexpensively,but we can do it. We put a man on the moon and conducted the Manhatten project and we can extract the hydrogen.
It is not the Technical Problem but the Political Problem. We have to develope an understanding of what it cost not to do this.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=41211

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google