Hydrogen the ruse? or we can't afford hydrogen

Renewables, Not Hydrogen, Is The Answerposted June 19,

2004Congressman Wamp's June 17 op-ed "Time to Get Serious About Hydrogen" just shows how misinformed the general public and most politicians are about the hydrogen economy. Dr. Joe Romm, former Director of Energy Efficiency and Renewables at DOE, in his just released book, The Hype About Hydrogen, discusses the huge challenges posed by a hydrogen economy. He says hydrogen is unlikely to have a significant impact before 2050 and we can't wait that long. It is becoming increasingly more clear to a growing group of distinguished scientists that the 'hydrogen economy' is really a ruse -- a distraction -- and our only viable, long-term, transportation option is renewables. The National Academy of Science and National Academy of Engineering (NAS/NAE) have recently released the most thorough study thus far on the 'hydrogen economy', The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs, http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/ This study definitely gets it right on most accounts, but still understates the hydrogen challenges. First, the NAS/NAE study gets it right on both current fuel-cell (FC) state-of-the-art and on CO2 emissions from hydrogen production. Production of liquid hydrogen (which is required for practical distribution) from natural gas, results in the release of over 20 kg of CO2 for every kilogram of liquid hydrogen (H2) produced (1 kg of H2 has the energy of 1 gal. of gasoline). Liquid hydrogen from coal, which is what we'll be using in 25 years, results in the release of 30 kg of CO2 per kg of H2 (unless the CO2 is sequestered, which adds $1 per kg of H2). After another decade of progress, hydrogen vehicles (with production-grade FCs then getting 38% efficiency) will cause over three times as much CO2 to be released per mile as advanced diesel hybrids -- and that's without even using biodiesel. However, the NAS/NAE report fails to address the seriousness of the issue of FC vehicle cost. After more than a decade of intensive FC R&D, there is still no basis for the hope that it will eventually be possible to produce vehicle-grade FC systems priced within a factor of 10 of what will be required to compete with the advanced diesel hybrid. The NAS/NAE study notes that 75 kW (100 hp) proton exchange membrane fuel cells (PEMFCs) with unimpressive efficiency (30-35%) are finally commercially available in the range of $3,000-$5,500/kW for stationary applications, but these FCs (which would come to $500K for a typical car) would be quickly and seriously incapacitated under road conditions -- by vibration, freezing temperatures, or the air pollution levels often encountered in heavy traffic. They typically last less than 30,000 miles. A second major problem in the NAS/NAE study was its hydrogen price estimates. The DOE/EIA has been forced to make major upward revisions in their price projections every year for the past six years. More realistic projections expect natural gas in 2025 to cost $16/GJ at the city gate, which is still only 50% above recent peaks but 3.5 times the price assumed in the NAS/NAE report. Realistic hydrogen price projections (see 'A Realistic Look at Hydrogen Price Projections', http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_H2Price.pdf ) indicate hydrogen will cost 3 to 6 times what they are expecting, and the fuel cost per mile in the FC vehicle will be 4 to 8 times that in the advanced bio-diesel hybrid in 2025. The NAS/NAE report should have emphasized that next-generation biofuels for future transportation fuels need greatly increased attention and funding. (For more detailed information, see 'Fuels for Tomorrow's Vehicles', http://www.dotynmr.com/PDF/Doty_FutureFuels.pdf .) Major investments are needed into advanced diesel hybrids, cellulosic ethanol, bio-methanol, high-oil algae, and advanced catalysts for standard fuels from methanol. Responsible planning to avert a looming energy crisis would have us re-direct much of the hydrogen funding to next-generation liquid biofuels, renewable fertilizers, wind, and solar. With modest increases in funding of advanced concepts in liquid biofuels, much better options are possible. F. David Doty, Ph.D.PresidentDoty Scientific, Inc.Columbia, SC david@dotynmr.com