Global Heating: Why We Must Shift to Carbon-Free Fuel (Part I)

Even among the Merely Moderately Enlightened, Global Warming is no longer an issue. The Bali Roadmap of last December and the forceful reports earlier last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have, at long last, produced basic agreement that we have to get serious about fighting global warming.

The elephant in the room is, "How"?

The arguably best answer came from Europe's parliamentarians in Strasbourg in May 2007. The European Parliament overwhelmingly adopted a declaration calling for a green hydrogen economy and "a third industrial revolution."

The revolution has in fact started in different parts of the world but it's still puny and an iffy proposition. One revolutionary example that is most impressive right now in terms of funding and scope is in an, at first blush, unlikely place, Abu Dhabi. There, the government has launched the Masdar Initiative, a $15 billion undertaking that includes construction of Masdar City, a car- and waste-free city of 50,000 to be powered entirely by solar, wind and hydrogen energy, including a 420 Megawatt super-efficient power plant fueled by hydrogen derived from natural gas which so far has been reinjected into oil fields to enhance oil production. This is not some Fata Morgana shimmering in the desert: Ground was broken in mid-February, and participants and contractors include international heavyweights such as British architect Sir Norman Foster as master planner; the American construction management firm of CH2M HILL, and the UK's British Petroleum and Rio Tinto in a joint venture to design and build the hydrogen power plant. The Masdar organizers say it is the most ambitious government-funded sustainability program ever. The $15 billion are apparently only seed money; the Initiative expects to attract additional funding for other sustainable energy projects in other parts of the Middle East and elsewhere.

The basic issues are no longer in doubt then, despite what persistent naysayers such as Senator James Imhofe and Rush Limbaugh claim. We all know by now the principal culprit is man-made CO2, produced by burning fossil fuels in trains, planes, automobiles etc. Less well known is that CO2 stays in the atmosphere a lot longer than previously believed: hundreds, maybe thousands of years - for all practical purposes, "forever," according to eminent NASA climatologist Jim Hansen. Thus, stabilizing and reducing global CO2 levels in our atmosphere must become a global priority.

As IPCC chairman R. K. Pachauri explained in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, to stabilize carbon dioxide emissions at 445 to 490 parts per million (ppm), essential to holding global temperature increases to around 2 deg. Celsius, CO2 emissions will have to peak between NOW and 2015 and then decline. THAT' SEVEN YEARS FROM NOW! Hansen sets the limit radically lower even at 350 ppm: In his view, another 2 degree Celsius is a recipe for global disaster, he told the House Select Committee on Energy in June (the current level is about 385 ppm, according to the most recent NOAA data)

But even if stabilization were achieved - unlikely given the glacially slow attempts at climate amelioration - global sea levels are likely to continue to rise above pre-industrial levels somewhere between 40 centimeters and 1.4 meters, according to Pachauri (Hansen says it's more like 2 meters, and we're getting dangerously close to the "tipping point.")

A solution that's been studied exhaustively all over the world at least since the 1970s is to substitute the quintessential carbon-free, by definition environmentally benign, chemical hydrogen for fossil fuels.

In the United States, however, hydrogen has in recent years largely slipped off the radar screen of public interest, elbowed aside by other suggestions such as a carbon tax and carbon trading, carbon sequestration, tougher energy conservation, higher energy-efficiency standards, alternatives such as plug-in hybrids, bio-fuels and bio-diesel, ethanol, clean coal, wind and wave power, solar and geothermal energy and nuclear power.

All are helpful and are to be applauded, but they won't be sufficient. We must stop putting carbon into the air in the first place--not take it out afterwards--and we must start moving towards a carbon-free chemical fuel--hydrogen - NOW to begin veering away from catastrophe. Both short-term and longer-term approaches are needed, especially given the rapidly growing economies of China and India. While the ultimate goal is renewable hydrogen, the magnitude of the energy challenge dictates the use of hydrogen produced for now from major energy sources such as coal (with carbon sequestration) and nuclear.

Hydrogen, an energy carrier and not an energy source, can serve to unite just about all other forms of energy. Today, it is produced most economically from natural gas - ultimately, a dead end. In the future, renewable hydrogen can be obtained by splitting water via electrolysis with solar electricity, for example; from biofuels and biomethane and many other sources like that other energy carrier, electricity, which is also generated from many sources.

There is a beautiful symmetry in the fact that hydrogen and electricity are complementary: hydrogen can be produced from water by running an electric current through it in an electrolyzer. When reversing the process in a fuel cell - an electrolyzer running backwards! - hydrogen recombines electrochemically with the air's oxygen to produce electricity, pure water and some heat. Geoffrey Ballard, founder of fuel cell maker Ballard Power Systems, has coined the term "hydricity" to describe this symbiosis. Hydrogen can replace fossil fuels in almost all applications. Claude Roulet, an executive with a company intimately linked to Big Oil, Schlumberger Carbon Services, has said that while electricity was the energy carrier of the last two centuries, "hydrogen is the energy carrier of the 21st century."

The big problem is that the United States is in danger of falling behind Europe and Japan in recognizing hydrogen's value and in providing the consistent, long-term investment necessary. Here, hydrogen is frequently undervalued even by many clean-energy advocates as still too far in the future, as too inefficient; biofuels or renewably-generated electricity as well as all the other market-manipulative suggestions are frequently touted as better, nearer-term solutions to the CO2 threat. It has created divisions and acrimonious fights among clean energy supporters. Last December, the "Los Angeles Times" reported what has been brewing underground for some time, namely, that the supporters of the two principal green transportation technologies, hydrogen fuel cells and plug-in hybrids, are "squared off in an increasingly bitter fight........vying for publicity, manufacturer acceptance, favorable regulation and, especially, funding for research and investment in infrastructure and marketing."

Recently, it has become clear that biofuels are problematical and probably not the total answer. Earlier this year two back-to-back studies in "Science," concluded that biofuels may be as much or more of a greenhouse gas menace as today's gasoline and diesel: In the words of one scientist, "most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gases substantially." Other media reports say that increasingly unpredictable weather and crop growing seasons, perhaps due in part to global warming, may make both food and fuel production even more of a crapshoot.

The flip side, the potential for producing much more carbon-free chemical fuel per acre via solar and wind energy converted to hydrogen, were explained last fall by a German think tank, LBST (Ludwig Boelkow Systemtechnik), that has done a great deal of work for the European Union and well-to-wheel studies for General Motors. The bottom line was that renewable electricity generated from photovoltaics and wind and used to split water can generate as much as ten times the amount of energy in form of hydrogen fuel than could be produced from the same acreage as biofuel. Photovoltaics were found to produce the most fuel per acre, but wind would still be better than biofuels, and it would have the added advantage of retaining much of the farm land - under some scenarios, as much as 99% - to grow crops.

Peter Hoffmann is editor and publisher of "The Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Letter," www.hfcletter.com

Comments

[jase]

Isn't water vapor, released from burning hydrogen, a greenhouse gas as well?

[ImmanuelGoldstein]

Since hydrogen isn't a net energy source, there are few if any net energetic benefits from the 'hydrogen economy".Which for the forseeable future is going to be a coal economy.

I'm going to make this as simple as possible

Hydrogen Economy= FRAUD

[Patrick Takahashi - Huffpost Blogger]

Liked your posting, Peter. You could well be correct in the long term. However, the problem will be in the transition, for the infrastructure and prevalent attitudes will take time and infinite patience to overcome. Peak Oil and Global Warming will not allow for this luxury. My various articles in HuffPo suggest that some combination of biomethanol as the bridge, in tandem with an utterly extreme measure, like making Green Energy FREE, might be required for Humanity to prevent the crushing global depression predicted by some doomsdayers as an inevitable conclusion of our dithering. I gather there will be at least a Part 2, which must provide clues on how a total hydrogen economy can gain a foothold in this current period when society seems paralyzed to make any crucial decisions. My FREE Green Hydrogen Age required an undefined miracle. I Iook forward to your hopefully more realistic follow-up article.

[mouselion]

I'm somewhat skeptical, but if "hydricity" is indeed a fact that can be practically and economically managed, then this will indeed render Oil irrelevant and solar and wind major players. I'll be looking for more on this.

[dobermanmacleod]

While I applaud the idealism of switching to non-polluting renewable energy sources, it is too late. Already, the CO2 already in the air, combined with future natural emissions when carbon sinks become carbon emitters, plus future emissions from machines already built, will result in rapid ecosystem collapse by mid-century:

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07

I know this is hard to believe, but google "Rapid Ecosystem Collapse From CO2 Already in the Air" for a more complete explaination. But there is a temporary fix, a very inexpensive simple way to immediately cool the Earth: just put a small amount of aerosol into the air to dim the sun. We won't be able to stop rapid ecosystem collapse without geoengineering.

[NL207]

"will result in rapid ecosystem collapse by mid-century:"

This is a bold assertion. Can you provide any peer-reviewed literature that substantiates these wild claims?

--Dr James Lovelock's : Another Dr. Paul Ehrlich.

[GreyFlcn]

As for solving our climate problem, it's actually rather simple:

1. Use energy from the sun
http://greyfalcon.net/energy2.png

2. Store that thermal energy in liquid salt, and run that thermal energy through a steam turbine when we need it.
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal
http://greyfalcon.net/solarthermal2
http://www.esolar.com/solution.html

3. For longer term energy storage use Compressed Air Energy Storage, and Pumped Hydropower.
http://www.livescience.com/technology/080604-pf-caes.html

4. Charge electric cars off of that energy
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars.png

@. Presto, that 2/3rds of our climate problems solved.
All within an area which is 1/3rd the size of land currently devoted to corn ethanol.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/20/143633/019#comment7

___

Considering as you mention, we need to get serious about this. We can't be focusing so much on methods, and start ignoring goals. And thats generally what the Hydrogen crowd does.

But then again, the same could be said about BioFuels, and Coal Sequestration advocates.

We don't have that luxury any more to be esoteric.
Time and Money are wasting. And we don't have enough of either.

[GreyFlcn]

1. Hydrogen requires 3-4x more electricit­y/infrastr­ucture/car­bon for the same range as Electric
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen4.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen.png
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen3.png

2. Hydrogen requires 9 gallons of water per 1 gasoline gallon equivalent
http://thewatt.com/node/78

3. Given the options of PHEVs, Swappable Batteries, 1-6 minute Quickcharge NanoLithium Batteries w/ high current charging stations, and simply making batteries with more range than one could possibly use in a day. That eliminates the ONLY reason for using hydrogen in the first place. It's refueling speed.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/30/video-of-project-better-places-battery-exchange-system/
http://greyfalcon.net/quickcharge3.png

4. Electric cars driven on electricity from the dirtiest coal plants are still cleaner than conventional gasoline cars.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins7

5. Hydrogen cars driven on California grid average electricity are dirtier than conventional gasoline cars.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png

6. Hydrogen from splitting natural gas is effectively no different than just burning the natural gas as CNG.
http://greyfalcon.net/electriccars3.png

6. We already have plenty of excess power plant capacity to support 70% of the US car fleet if it were electric. (Ideal circumstances but plenty for the forseeable future)
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins4

7. There are only a couple dozen hydrogen refueling stations in America.

8. Every house in America has an electricity plug. (Usually a "Washing Machine" 240V plug at that)

[mouselion]

"There isn't a single study out there which says that plugin/electric cars charged with the dirtiest coal plants available would put out more CO2 per mile than a conventional car."

But that fact does not help reduce CO2 emissions. If it is the same, then it is a wash -- and consumers might as well stick with fossil fuel engines. The electric car is no greener than the source of electricity. In order for electric cars to make sense, electric generation must come from cleaner sources.

[research]

Apparently coal plant charged electric cars are actually slightly dirtier then a good gas or diesel car. Normal hybrid driving is the cleanest if you use coal.

Grey: I made that same assertion and ended up eating it. the standard old coal plant is only 35% efficient. A good diesel can be over 40% eff. That's not even counting transmission charge discharge and electric efficiencies losses.

So if you get your electricity from coal, just drive a hybrid, or don't plug in your plug in hybrid.

Trouble is, it IS cheaper to plug it in.

The solution is to replace coal plants with wind and solar as fast as possible.
Wind is already much cheaper and faster to build than Coal, and the fuel is free.
see my profile.

[Wilburrr]

I hear a lot of rhetoric for hydrogen and hydrogen economies but I hear no specifics. How is hydrogen obtained from natural gas not equivalent to carbon based fuel? What are you going to do with the carbon by product and how is this not going to get into the atmosphere? If a solid, where are you going to store the huge amounts that will need to be generated? How are you going to either generate or store hydrogen in sufficient quantity to do more than just run your PC? I wish the hydrogen enthusiasts would explain how they see us getting over the substantial hurdles that come with hydrogen.

[AmericanSon]

If you want specifics, I will suggest two sources.
One, buy and read the book by Harry Braun, "The Phoenix Project".
Two, go to http://www.hydrogencommerce.com/ for the latest on renewable hydrogen.

[Wilburrr]

Thanks, I will check those out, but I have to say I am a bit skeptical. Hydrogen generation and storage are huge issues.