Hydrogen may be accepted by automakers as a prime green energy alternative

[ralfyman]

But investments in that assume the same or better energy return than those involving fossil fuels.

 

[dvdjs]

But investments in that assume the same or better energy return than those involving fossil fuels.

No. These systems are aimed to regulate availability and develop added capacity to meet peak demand,

 

[ralfyman]

Yes, but in order to develop them, investments are needed, and investors want the best returns. That means high energy returns, not something that is an energy sink!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That means high energy returns, not something that is an energy sink!

After what just happened with PG&E in California I could still see a demand for this. I remember working in the LA area and the building inwas in getting hot. When I asked what was wrong with the AC inwas told the power company could turn off the AC at peak times to keep power usage within their capacity.

 

[dvdjs]

No. It means high monetary returns.

 

[ralfyman]

I’m not sure if forum members understand this point about an energy return. If the return is less than 1, then the source provides less energy than what is needed to generate it. In short, there’s no gain.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’m not sure if forum members understand this point about an energy return. If the return is less than 1, then the source provides less energy than what is needed to generate it. In short, there’s no gain.

Probably not. That line drawn between less than 1.0 and greater than 1.0 is a pretty significant classifier.

While I already had an understanding for the concept the term EROI hadn’t been part of my lexicon until I read the link that you provided and what @dvdjs had posted.

 

[Cathoholic]

ralfy . . .

I’m not sure if forum members understand this point about an energy return. If the return is less than 1, then the source provides less energy than what is needed to generate it. In short, there’s no gain.

What is the “energy return” on say refined gasoline at the pump?

Does that result that you will cite count the “cost” of carbon sequestration that may need undertaking in the future?

How about health issues associated with unclean air?

(Think Bejing, or Mexico City or even Salt Lake City)?

Does that “energy return” number for gas at the pump factor in those hospitalizations and even sick days for respiratory illness, etc. associated with polluted air?

From my OP article . . . .

Nicolas Pocard, director of marketing at Ballard Power Systems Inc. in Burnaby, B.C., says there are affordable ways to create green hydrogen. In Europe, for example, companies buy excess electricity produced by wind farms during off-peak hours at next to no cost to create hydrogen through electrolysis. It can be produced, compressed and delivered to the customer at cost-parity with diesel fuel, he said.

Think about a “mini-electrolysis” refinery in your own back yard producing energy from a solar source that beforehand, went wasted.

You prime it with water. Your solar power source provides electrolysis energy. It deposits that energy (hydrogen) in a tank to potentially be siphoned off to run your car, heat/cool your home, provide home-electricity, etc.

Instead of going to the gas station you fill up at home. Not for free. But potentially reasonably priced (again admittedly not “free” – initial costs i.e. solar equipment, tanks, pressure valves, hoses, maintanance, etc).

This seems like a huge potential net gain to me.

Apparently SOME of the higher-ups in China and Japan think so too.

It’s major drawback?

With enough technological advances, people could utilize such sources quasi-independently.

Q: Well what’s wrong with THAT Cathoholic?

A: To me? Nothing.
But Governments who will want that now-void tax charge, will not want to let go of your money.
Also Big Oil companies are going to want to keep you . . . (no pun intended) . . . Coming back to the well.

This will create obstacles.

Now if they REALLY believed the planet was heading toward irreversible doom, this should not be an issue.

But as I have said here on CAF before.

Rare is the global warming activist who really believes what they are saying.
At least the movers and shakers in governance. At least that is my conclusion from watching their actions (a multitude of homes, ubiquitous private air travel, hoggish lifestyles, purchasing ocean-front homes, ignoring global warming demi-gods when “fools predictions” are made from them, etc.)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Interesting to see this again. When I was a kid in grade school hydrogen was touted as the “fuel of the future”. All they had to do was overcome a few obstacles like its hazards and the cost of recovering it. About every decade somebody “discovers” it again.

I’m very skeptical that it’s different this time.

 

[dvdjs]

If the return is less than 1, then the source provides less energy than what is needed to generate it. In short, there’s no gain.

There is no “gain” in energy. But there can be economic gain. THE economic gain makes the sotrage/release systems valuable.

 

[Guinness]

Interesting to see this again. When I was a kid in grade school hydrogen was touted as the “fuel of the future”. All they had to do was overcome a few obstacles like its hazards and the cost of recovering it. About every decade somebody “discovers” it again.

Once you overcome those trivial little obstacles, you then need to set up the logistics chain for supporting and maintaining all those hydrogen powered vehicles. The Shell station on the corner isn’t going to be able to fuel and service your hydrogen powered car without some substantial, and costly changes.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

The Shell station on the corner isn’t going to be able to fuel and service your hydrogen powered car without some substantial, and costly changes.

I once had interest in an alternative fueled vehicle. Honda had a version of the Civic that could run on compressed natural gas. It was marketed as something you could also fill up from home if your house were powered by natural gas. Additionally this car had a normal gas tank too; if someone went on a long distant trip they could use regular gasoline. But that car was discoontinued and replaced with a model that was natural gas only. There being a total of 2 natural gas stations in the Atlanta area (none of which is close to where I live) and not wanting a car I could not take on a long drive I dropped the idea. Other people that got such vehicles discovered a new level of inconvenience when the natural gas stations near them shut down.

Honda makes a hydrogen fuel cell powered car (Clarity). There’s an “eligibility” link on their page that checks whether you are near a fuel station. There don’t appear to be many of them yet.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I was listening to a video about a problem older Teslas are having and YouTube suggested this video next.

This video compared the cost per kilometer and the energy economics of hydrogen and electric cars. It also looks at some of the most common methods of hydrogen production.

 

[ralfyman]

According to Charles Hall, energy return refers to energy you get back from what is invested, and the more sophisticated our lifestyles, the higher the energy return needed, as well as resources.

The global economy that we have requires high energy returns because most want middle class conveniences:

Will Fossil Fuels Be Able to Maintain Economic Growth? A Q&A with Charles Hall

The inventor of the energy return on investment (EROI) metric argues that economic growth could soon stop—and that we need to get smart about incorporating the true cost of fuel in energy policies

www.scientificamerican.com

The amount of energy and resources needed to maintain the growth of that economy is equivalent to at least one more earth.

 

[ralfyman]

Read up on energy return first before discussing this issue. In sum, it refers to the energy received from what is invested. If the return is less than 1, then it’s an energy sink. That means it provides less energy than what is needed to have it!

If your concern is environmental crises, then the only way to minimize that is not to have hydrogen fuels and passenger vehicles, among others. In short, we will have to cut down heavily on resource and energy use, to a point that we follow a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century, if not earlier.

 

[Cathoholic]

ralfy . . .

. . . . the only way to minimize (environmental consequences) . . . is not to have hydrogen fuels and passenger vehicles, among others. In short, we will have to cut down heavily on resource and energy use, to a point that we follow a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century, if not earlier.

Why?

What if we can INCREASE energy expenditure, AND have a cleaner environment at the same time?

Why does it HAVE TO be an either/or scenario?

I’m not going to “follow a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century”.

Are YOU following “a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century”?

(You don’t need me, or the UN, or Washington D.C. for you to do this.

What you are saying seems to have in seed form anyway, an international police force to FORCE people to live a nineteenth century lifestyle.

You will need FORCED population control in the third world too. Are you OK with that?

Of course the elites in power, always give themselves a “pass” on these kind of things. They are not going to live a nineteenth century lifestyle.

So are “exceptions” for hoggish politicians OK too?
Can we save the planet without them on board?)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

then the only way to minimize that is not to have hydrogen fuels and passenger vehicles, among others. In short, we will have to cut down heavily on resource and energy use, to a point that we follow a lifestyle equivalent to that of the nineteenth century, if not earlier.

It sounds like the Amish might then have one of the lowest carbon footprint lifestyles. I’ve also seen it advised to eat locally grown food since foods grown elsewhere contribute more to carbon emissions in the transport from where they were grown to where they are sold. Saving and eating one’s left overs instead of throwing them away is also said to help; being wasteful with food translates into a higher amount of resource consumption per calorie that a person eats.

 

[Cathoholic]

TS.

Interesting video.

Naturally there will need to be more refinements to the system.

Your video ignores electricity generated from coal power plants. (Assuming the (name removed by moderator)ut is equal - paraphrasing so I don’t have to go back and watch it again).

It also assumes hydrocarbon usage results in no outside energy expenditures as fallout from hydrocarbons.

If the world is going to end in 11 years (or at least the beginning of the end) due to global warming, there will be COSTS associated with this too (that your video ignored).

Unless of course, the 11 year cry is a spoof.

And of course it is a spoof. Your implicit argument on behalf of big oil suggests to me at least YOU KNOW it is a spoof.

I and many others do too.

The guy on the video didn’t seem to concerned about it either. At least on this video. He was confident enough to not even bring up that issue with regards to hydrocarbon burning (in THIS video).

If you talk to people in the energy industry they will tell you about the memoirs they get regarding the potential for power-grid disruption associated with international terrorism.

Dismantling at least some elements of that grid, or diversifying it more, would help make it more difficult for those terrorists to target and thus protect America against such attacks or at least buffer the potential attacks.

Like I said. If each back yard had its own electrolysis “refinery” (admittedly, a long ways away from that), this takes energy production, at least partially off grid, as well as giving the consumer a chance to “bank” his home energy.

I get that terrorists can circumvent these measures too. And I understand that there will be grid trade-offs (hydrogen tank making supply outlets could be targeted, etc.).

But as Dell Computer has pointed out, supply diversification buffers unforseen catastrophies.

His cost analysis assumes going to the gas station to purchase hydrogen. It never speculates on home production. (Admittedly. This is not ready for prime-time either. But you cannot fulfill dreams, if you don’t dream in the first place. That’s part of what “idea” brainstorming is all about.)

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Your video ignores electricity generated from coal power plants.

His presentation was concentrating on the production, distribution,economics, and efficiency of hydrogen production and fuel cell vehicles. Energy sources were not discussed beyond two sentences saying that zero carbon energy sources could be used and that off peak energy could be use in hydrogen production. Energy sources were not the topic of his presentation.

If the world is going to end in 11 years

It won’t end. But it could end up being less comfortable and with higher risks. But it won’t end.

And of course it is a spoof. Your implicit argument on behalf of big oil suggests to me at least YOU KNOW it is a spoof.

I’m not arguing for “big oil.” Historically I think oil companies may have been an obstructive force to development of other types of energy. But that said, it doesn’t change the energy economics and practical considerations of the situation.

I earlier mentioned the family that had the natural gas powered car. The local natural gas stations shut down. They could still fill up from home, but only being able to drive within range of their house wasn’t sufficient and they decided to be rid of the car because it wouldn’t work for them practically without their being support beyond their home.

I’ve not done a total cost of ownership analysis, but I know the Honda Clarity variation that is powered by a fuel cell starts of at about 58,000 USD. I tend to stick with cars that are 20,000 USD or less. I have record of ever trip my current car has taken for the past 5 years (drive path, speed, fuel consumed, so on); that information is automatically logged for me. Having not done an analysis this is only conjecture but I don’t think I would have reached the break even point on TCO on a hydrogen powered vehicle. Never mind the fact my closest hydrogen station is 1,800 miles away. That’s not an argument for big oil. It’s from a desire to have a low TCO for my transportation.

Like I said. If each back yard had its own electrolysis “refinery” (admittedly, a long ways away from that), this takes energy production, at least partially off grid, as well as giving the consumer a chance to “bank” his home energy.

I think the above mentioned situation of the car that had to stay within range of one’s home is transferable to this. Being able to store energy in the car is nice, but I think wider support would be needed for it to be practical. For electrical cars getting such support up and running was easier as we already have systems of distributing electricity on which a charging circuit could be attached. In a worst case scenario one only needs a standard electrical outlet. We don’t currently have a good distribution method for hydrogen. Right now the most efficient means of transport of hydrogen is by pipeline. In the USA the only hydrogen pipelines are on the west coast.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

BTW: A video from a different perspective from the same person. I think this one was done earlier. It has some overlap with the other video.