Hydrogen 5: Where Does The Hydrogen Comes From?
This is the next a series on futurist Garry Golden’s vision of a hydrogen future. To review:
- The promise of plug-in hybrids.
- The future is electric.
- Fuel cells will power the electric vehicles of the future.
- The hydrogen that powers those fuel cells will be in solid form.
So, the next question becomes “Where are we going to get the hydrogen to run our electric vehicles?” Primarily three feedstocks: water, a hydrocarbon like methane, and possibly ammonia. To make hydrogen out of water and methane gas you need electricity and it takes less electricity to make hydrogen out of methane than it does out of water.
Indeed, that’s the tact taken by Honda on it’s FCX, a fuel cell vehicle that will be leased to a few people in Southern California this year. The hydrogen to power the fuel cell will ultimately come from a device that will connect to the homeowners natural gas line, although for this year’s leases drivers will fuel up at hydrogen refueling stations.
But, as many engineers will tell you, hydrogen is an “energy carrier”, not a fuel source, which begins the argument against hydrogen. That argument goes like this:
1) It takes energy to create hydrogen.
2) Storage is currently a problem.
3) There are energy losses in a fuel cell.
4) Therefore, hydrogen doesn’t make sense.
Let’s start with the first argument.
It Takes Energy to Create Hydrogen
Well, yes, it does take energy create hydrogen, primarily because hydrogen wants to attach itself to other elements. While hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, on Earth, it’s combined with other elements (eg: H20), so it takes energy to break it free from other atoms.
But, it takes energy to create gasoline, too. And to dig coal out of the ground. And to process fuel for nuclear reactors. For many engineers, the calculus of making hydrogen tells them it’s less attractive than fossil fuels. As one engineer recently told me, “The goal is electricity; currently, batteries are more economical in vehicles.”
Golden’s answer is, “I just don’t buy the argument that hydrogen will never work ‘because it takes more energy to make than you get out.’ Then stop eating and living, because that is the basic law of energy.” The argument is a restatement of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Anyone seriously thinking about the future of energy understands that we live in a world ruled by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. No one seriously considering hydrogen is suggesting violating that rule. They think we can get more and more efficient so that hydrogen become price competitive with gasoline. If gas was still at $1.75/gal like the were in 2003, the hydrogen argument would be tougher to make.
The future of energy lies in diversity. For transportation, we’re going to see hybrids, plug-in hybrids, fuel-cell electric vehicles, battery powered electric vehicles, capacitor powered electric vehicles, fuel-cell/hybrid/capacitor powered electric vehicles, fuel-cell hybrids, etc. In other words, energy in general, and transportation in particular, will follow the general trend happening in other fields today. For example, media. To draw an analogy, while 30 years ago, there were three TV network, two newspapers, and a few radio stations in every medium to large city (roughly), today, there is an explosion of media because of the Internet, cell phones, etc. (Indeed many 20 year old watch “TV” on their computers.)
Likewise, because gasoline is expensive; the Iraq war seemingly has no end; and global warming is a huge unforseen consequence of energy production; there’s a lot of motivation to create new ways to run our cars and light our houses. That motivation will result in a variety of solutions. So, in 1981, your choice was to buy either a gasoline or a diesel vehicle, in 2015, you’ll have more choices.
The trend to electric vehicles facilitates this trend to diversity because electricity can be generated in many different ways and to an electric motor, a moving electron is a moving electron, no matter what it got it moving in the first place. While it takes a refinery to create gasoline, there are many ways to create moving electrons, both at a local, utility scale, and at an individual level. Indeed, we could be talking about the energy equivalent of the PC Revolution.
Golden continues, “Expect centralized and decentralized methods. We should expect all current primary sources to be involved- and new ones (solar-H2; bio hydrogen) to appear. We still know very little about the basic science of hydrogen production so there is ample room for breakthroughs. The truth is that we don’t put a lot of effort into designing catalysts for hydrogen production. It is not a mature industry, and the scientific knowledge is still not there to support technological advances.
“The first wave of production will likely be based on appliances tapping natural gas lines; and if they can make it cheap enough, electrolysis.
“The ones that hold the most long term potential to satisfy most critical eco audiences – are photo-hydrogen production (direct light, splitting water) and bio solutions. (algae, microbes, et al) Definitely watch the work at Logan’s lab at Penn State.”
Black and Green Hydrogen
It takes energy to create hydrogen. Anyone’s who has taken high school chemistry has seen the experiment where electricty is used to break water into hydrogen and oxygen. My high school teacher dramatically showed what can be done with the hydrogen after he ran the experiment by turning the test tube containing hydrogen to a bunsen burner, which ignited the hydrogen. There was a loud bang.
If the electricity used to create hydrogen comes from fossil fuels or nuclear, it’s called “Black” hydrogen. If the electricity comes from renewable energy sources like solar, wind, hydro, etc., or if it comes from biological methods, it’s called “Green” hydrogen. The end result is the same: a convenient creation and storage mechanism for “electricity” with hydrogen as the carrier. Golden thinks it is possible. “Our electricity industry already thrives with all the same challenges for hydrogen – tough to store and ‘energy carrier, not energy source’ – but nobody says electricity has no future.
“Efficiencies are improving through nanoscale design of catalysts, electrodes, and membranes. When splitting water molecules, or hydrocarbon chains (via electricity, light, or biology) certain things matter- like surface area, role of certain elements (types of metals, presence of oxygen, light absorption, et al) So we are creating new catalysts for electrolysis – biohybrid, non precious alkali metals, et al. Not all methods for electrolysis are created equal.”
Clearly, the goal is to move to green hydrogen, but we’ll need to transition there with some combination of black hydrogen.
To show the diversity in current thinking, take Dr. Homer Wang. 
His idea is to use wind power in Antarctica to generate electricity to make ammonia. Ammonia (NH3) is then used as a direct source to ammonia powered fuel cells, or as a carrier for hydrogen powered fuel cells. Ships transport ammonia to the US, much like we ship crude oil today.
His basic insight comes from the above NASA image of worldwide windspeed data collected over a 10 year period (1983 – 1993). That big red band just above the Antarctic in the bottom of the picture is air moving between 9 and 12 meters/second (20 mph – 27 mph). The data is old, so there may be effects from global warming, but it’s still a compelling argument: winds in the Antarctic could be used for wind power. Whether the electricity is used to create ammonia or hydrogen depends on demand, storage costs, and the current state of science and engineering.
But the point remains that thinking within our current energy paradigm will only get us incremental change. Thinking beyond our current energy paradigm is the best chance we have of generating the solutions we need to meet our energy needs. And by relaxing the unspoken requirement that our energy solution needs to be a mass solution, we can foster diversity in our energy production and hopefully, make ourselves more resilient.
To be clear, I am NOT arguing for deregulation of our current energy marketplace as I see that as an INCREMENTAL change. I’m talking about a fundamentally different approach to energy at all levels. But more on that later.
So. Where does the hydrogen come from? Future green potential aside, right now most of that electricity is going to come from coal or, best case, natural gas. The amounts of electricity involved are huge, too: replacing all gasoline powered vehicles with hydrogen vehicles would require doubling the world’s production of natural gas for the electrolysis alone. Moreover, it’s not clear the hydrogen economy would do diddly to reduce CO2. Making hydrogen from methane produces as much CO2 as burning the methane, plus the CO2 for the electricity, plus the carbon footprint of the vehicle itself. (Statistics from the MRS Bulletin’s energy issue, http://tinyurl.com/3cstpu)
Sure, hydrogen fuel cells are worth researching. But they aren’t going to happen fast enough or on a large enough scale to solve our climate problems.
Well, Garry Golden is a FUTURIST after all
And I agree, hydrogen is a long term solution, although I think there’s a good argument for electric vehicles being a short to mid-term solution.
The first widespread use of fuel cell or other electric vehicles are in fleets. Buses, delivery trucks, etc. like UPS and FedX who are looking at fuel cells delivery vehicles. It takes 15 years for the US passenger fleet to turn over, so ANY change to our transportation energy solution is necessarily a long-term bet.
The hydrogen will most likely come from methane; it could come from other fossil fuels. But this “black” hydrogen is not the end goal. Electrolysis via water would be the end goal. The big question becomes, why don’t we just use that electricity to charge up batteries? My hunch is that with solid storage of hydrogen at normal temps & pressures via hydrides or nanotubes, hydrogen could be come more attractive to batteries.
Methane burns much cleaner than oil or coal. And yes, you’re right, we need electricity. But I don’t understand your comment about the CO2 footprint of the vehicle. A fuel cell car is zero carbon emissions. It emits hot water.
What is your suggestion for solving our climate problems? What’s big enough?
I think it’s a diversity of options. For example, conservation is huge. Here in Austin, our local utility thinks of conservation efforts in terms of coal power plant equivalents. Through their efforts over the years, they have worked with their customers to become more efficient so that they have NOT needed to build a coal power plant. That’s really cool. We need to do that on a national level.
Also, getting smarter about how we use energy will go a long way to conservation.
A priority, I think, is the electric vehicle. Whether it’s hydrogen powering the fuel cell, or ammonia, or a plug-in, electric vehicles will be one big solution to our climate problems, not internal combustion engines running on fossil fuel. China and India are on the verge of a consumer revolution in transportation. They are going to be the big marketplaces for electric vehicles.
It’s my contention–based upon a hunch and NOT on data, yet–that fuel cell technology hasn’t had a whole lot of R&D money applied to it. Battery technology hasn’t had that much, either, over the past 100 years, although the computer revolution was the impetus for devloping LiON batteries and their cousins. Therefore, I think there’s tremendous gains yet to be made in battery & fuel cell technologies. Indeed, in his book “Internal Combustion”, Edwin Black comes to the same conclusion and argues that what we really need is a Manhattan Project-like effort with fuel cells to get where we need to go relatively quickly.
I definitely agree that conservation has to be a big part of the solution. Not only is it the only negative cost solution (conserving saves money), but using less energy makes all energy supply solutions easier. It’s a big problem, though, so we’re really going to need *all* the solutions that have been proposed, plus a bunch more that no one has thought of yet.
Vehicle carbon footprint includes the energy used to manufacture the vehicle in the first place. Often, advanced materials (such as the electronics in hybrids, as well as the catalysts in fuel cells) have significant carbon footprint all by themselves, not to mention the energy involved in shipping specialized parts all over the world. A domestic pickup truck that’s driven until the wheels fall off can actually have less total footprint than an imported hybrid that gets traded in after three or four years.
I’m surprised that natural gas powered vehicles don’t get more attention. The technology already exists, the distribution infrastructure is much more mature than hydrogen, and the carbon footprint is much lower than gasoline. They aren’t zero emissions, true, but they’re a big improvement.
I think Garry Golden has laid out a good plan for developing Hydrogen as a future fuel source. If the infrastructure was currently installed, it would be a major contender to replace petroleum as a power source for personal vehicles.
However, I believe the current problem is not really one of technolgy as it is of commerce. We are currently in our high fuel cost predicament because of a limited few corporations who monopolize and cooperate to maximize their profits (I don’t blame them, it’s their duty to the shareholders. It’s just shameful our own government cooperates with them as well). Whether it’s gasoline, diesel, ethanol, or eventually hydrogen, the consumer has no choice but to head to the pumps and continue to purchase from these corporations.
It’s the prospect of the consumer now having another choice with a BEV (pure battery electric vehicle) which will allow him to refuel at home (using electricity created by hydro, coal, natural gas, nuclear, or homegrown wind and solar) that will finally break the stranglehold that these corporations have had. This unlimited competition will finally let market forces work as they are meant too. As long as it can be produced at home, even hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles could help with this revolution.
BEVs will give the consumer the freedom they need to make these choices that unfortunately, hydrogen sold through fuel stations can’t. There is currently a big fight by ‘big oil’ and auto manufacturers to deny these choices to the average consumer. They have a lot to lose….
Run a financial analysis on the cost of making hydrogen then see how it compares with the more conventional fuels. Fact is, making hydrogen is very expensive – much more so than the fuels currently in use. The “evil corporations” are not hindering the use of hydrogen; economics is the culprit.
Reality has a funny way of popping hydrogen filled balloons.
Golden’s real insight is something I haven’t written about yet, but which Harlan hints at: distributed electricity generation. That’s potentially the real game changer, but only if we can solve the hydrogen storage problems and drive costs down. The reality is that there’s no great way to store electricity, especially at a utility level. Electric companies gear up and down to meet demand. For example, some Austin Energy employees will tell you that they produce more wind power at night than meets demand. What happens to that power? They ratchet down their gas fired plants. Now, there’s a practical limit as many older gas fired plants are not designed to power up and down below certain thresholds, so if renewables really take off, utilities will need to be redesigned to accommodate them, but that’s another problem…Except for pumping water up hill, or compressing air in huge underground caverns, there aren’t big electrical storage solutions at utilities–but there may be in the future.
Twenty years ago, running a financial analysis on the PC industry showed that it was small and didn’t make much financial sense compared with the existing alternatives. Indeed I remember talking to Unisys employees around 1987 who dismissed PC’s as toys. I had a boss in 1991 who said that we shouldn’t enter the consumer market until PC’s were advertised in circulars in the Sunday papers.
I’m sure people like Mitch Kapor are glad they paid attention to the industry. The present is not necessarily an indication of the future
And because cars are such a long term investment, any comprehensive solution to power for transportation is necessarily a long term bet. That’s why fleets are so important in to the transportation solution: they tend to turn over quicker and usually have centralized fueling stations, making a stronger financial case for new technologies. By starting with fleets, we can jump start new technologies by priming the pump of economies of scale, in much the same way the space program jump started the economies of scale for microelectronics.
Mike Keller, you’re comment discounts a number of underlying assumptions of Golden’s arguments. 1) thinking within the existing paradigm brings incremental solutions, but not fundamental change; and 2) technology tends tend to increase on a logarithmic, not a geometric scale. Eg: Moore’s law. Therefore, it’s within the realm of possibility that we can discover cost effective replacements for expensive fuel cell membranes, catalysts that lower the energy needs of electrolysis, and hydrides or carbon nanotubes that can soak up hydrogen like a sponge and store it in a solid substrate.
If hydrogen’s not a solution to high fuel prices and CO2/NOx emmissions, what is? So far in this thread we’ve discussed conservation and increased efficiency. What else, especially for transportation?
WINDHUNTER is a maritime hydrogen generation system that uses wind energy and seawater to produce hydrogen without human resistance and little ecological damage.
To some extent, high fuel prices are part of the solution to greenhouse emissions. High prices for fossil fuels both encourage conservation and improve the economics for other fuels. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the world’s most profligate user of energy (the US) also has among the world’s lowest energy prices.
For that reason, I don’t want a “solution” to high fuel prices. I want prices to stay high enough to give consumers an incentive to change their behavior, and to give developers of alternative technologies a real market incentive beyond continued government funding. I’m therefore in favor of both carbon taxes of various kinds and fuel taxes that more accurately reflect the social costs of the fossil fuel economy. (Proceeds of which can fund research on alternatives.)
I’m not answering your question because I don’t think it’s possible to identify The Solution yet. There’s simply too much basic research that needs to happen and has been, so far, pathetically starved of funding. So the first step towards a solution is social, economic, and political. Convince the average citizen that energy and climate change are existential threats, important enough to justify the full attention of the world’s best minds and economic resources. Do that, and the technological solutions will come.
Oh yeah. It wouldn’t hurt if the average citizen were convinced to act locally, too. Nothing like a killer electric bill to make compact fluorescents and a lower thermostat look good.
hey,does anybody know to burn hydrogen in a bunsen burner,i have generated hydrogen by electrolysis but don’t know how to burn it safely? please send any deatail on my e-mail adress shakti.sngh@gmail.com
hydrogen fueled vehicles are the best but they are still not widely available..:’