Peak Oil and why hydrogen won’t help us much (Long post)

[Il_Mostro]

The original point of this post is an answer to riverflush on why hydrogen is not the energy “source” of the future.
A lot of more knowledgeable people than me have written on this, I will mostly reference them.

I realise this post has grown to become a monster, but bear with me

First, we need to get a few things clear

1) I’m not arguing to win this time, I’m arguing to teach and be taught, so if you can refute my arguments using the same level of details I do, I’m all ears, if you can only give me wishes and vague hypothesises I reserve the right to not answer
2) I believe that the energy is the, by far, biggest problem we (as in the industrialized world) will face the next few decades. I hope we can solve it, but so far I’m not convinced
3) The fact that oil production will reach a peak and then start to decline is not really up for discussion anymore. The time of this peak is debatable, not the peak itself. The oil companies say it will, so does Matt Simmons (energy advisor for Bush) and lots of scientists [1]. Look it up if you don’t believe me
4) The most optimistic estimate for the peak is 2035, the more pessimistic 2005.
5) Given this peak, any energy solution for the future cannot by definition be reliant on oil. And not on gas, since the same peak will happen there, only a little later. And not coal, for the same reason. And, in the longer run, not nuclear fission, since we will run out of Uranium too, eventually.
6) I sincerely hope you will start looking into this, this is a serious problem that holds the potential to bring down all of the industrialized civilization. It does not have to happen, but it may, and that fact alone should be enough to get everyone to look into it and form his/her own opinion
7) If you don’t buy the theories, but won’t look it up, all I can do is wish you luck

Now for the actual post…

A few fundamentals will have to be said:

1) We need to find an energy replacement for oil that has the same, or almost the same, ease of use and versatility as oil. If we fail on this point we are facing a radically different society.
2) The final energy source(s) has to be indefinitely renewable. Not so in a transition period, but that period is not as long as one would like
3) The technology for this transition has to be on the horizon now, more or less esoteric energy sources like cold fusion and zero-point energy is excluded. Fusion is debatable; as far as I have read the people working in the field says that if at all possible we might have a fusion reactor online in about 50 years, that’s too late.
4) I’m not arguing we will all die if those fundamentals are not fulfilled, but since our economy is totally dependant on growth (which in itself makes it an impossibility in the long-run, a topic for another post, maybe), if we can’t grow we will face serious problems, and without cheap energy we simply cannot grow

So, does Hydrogen fulfil the fundamentals?

I will prelude all this with my thoughts on this matter, easily summarized like:
• Hydrogen will never run our society, it just cannot provide the energy needed
• Hydrogen may very well be part of the solution, just not The solution


Why, then, do I think that?

First, hydrogen is not an energy source; it’s an energy carrier. The way hydrogen is created is by electrolysing water. Due to the 2:nd law of thermodynamics energy is always lost when doing this, ie. more energy is spent on creating the hydrogen than can be obtained when burning the hydrogen. See Figure 4 in [2] for example. This fact alone pretty much excludes the notion of creating hydrogen using oil or natgas, since we’d be better of using them directly, instead of loosing energy converting them to hydrogen. We are left with electricity.

So, what we need to do is to create enough electricity to generate the hydrogen we need. The question is, is that possible?
In [3] ch 5 Energy resources is a calculation for the UK. The conclusions is as follows,
“For the UK this means that to substitute for the current road and air transport fuel by hydrogen would require from 1165 TWh to 1312 TWh of electricity generation, compared to the total UK generation of 386 TWh in 2002. “

In my mind that is just not doable, it’s hard enough switching to renewables, let alone do that at the same time as you increase the generation by a factor 5.

Another calculation along the same lines, this time for Cyprus [4]:
“Let's imagine that, one day, there will be 200,000 hydrogen-burning (e.g., fuel cell) cars in Cyprus, each averaging 40 km/day, it would require an extra power station of 1.6 GW to provide the required amount of hydrogen; this is almost twice the current peak electrical capacity for all industrial and domestic requirements.”

Now, let’s move on to [2], it’s a long document, but there are a few key passages, namely

Page 27. “Summary of results”
“We are surprised to discover that, apparently, the energy needed to run a hydrogen economy have never been fully assessed before.”

Page 28:
“All difficulties with the pure Hydrogen Economy appear to be directly related to the nature of hydrogen. Most of the problems cannot be solved by additional research and development. We have to accept that hydrogen is the lightest of all gases and, as a consequence, that its physical properties do not fully match the requirements of the energy market. Production, packaging, storage, transfer and delivery of the gas, in essence all key component of an economy, are so energy consuming that alternatives should and will be considered. Mankind cannot afford to waste energy for idealistic goals, but economy will look for practical solutions and select the most energy-saving procedures. The "Pure-Hydrogen-Only-Solution" may never become reality.”

As you see, I have concentrated on transportation here, the fact of the matter is that oil does a lot of other things for us that hydrogen can’t really do, including all those things as well only makes the case worse for the pure hydrogen economy.

A few links for the interested:
http://www.peakoil.net/
http://www.hubbertpeak.com
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/youngquist/altenergy.htm
http://manila.servlet.net/fuelcellfolly/

I don’t see the need to say more than this on this subject. If anyone has good reasons to believe I am wrong, please speak up. Otherwise, let’s conclude that a pure hydrogen solution just won’t cut it and move on to other energy sources. This conclusion is by no means radical, many researchers and authors has drawn it before me.
Myself, I will now look into synthetic hydrocarbons, as discussed in [2].



Endnotes:

[1] see for example:
http://www.peakoil.net/iwood2003/MatSim.html
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex...sdifferent.htm
http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate...03/page_5.html

The most interesting point here is:
“For example, we estimate that world oil and gas production from existing fields is declining at an average rate of about 4 to 6 percent a year. To meet projected demand in 2015, the industry will have to add about 100 million oil-equivalent barrels a day of new production. That’s equal to about 80 percent of today’s production level. In other words, by 2015, we will need to find, develop and produce a volume of new oil and gas that is equal to eight out of every 10 barrels being produced today. In addition, the cost associated with providing this additional oil and gas is expected to be considerably more than what industry is now spending.”

Contrast that statement to the fact that today we find 1 barrel of oil for every 6 we consume

[2] http://www.methanol.org/pdfFrame.cfm...Report2003.pdf
[3] http://www.after-oil.co.uk
[4] http://www.cypenv.org/Files/hydrogen.htm

[riverflush]

Like I said before - on 8/16/04 at 4:01 in a previous post:

[ QUOTE ]
I agree...I just don't think we'll realize the gloom-and-doom scenarios. They make for good speeches, but reality is usually a whole lot more practical. All I'm saying is that there is so much going on in energy research that nobody on this 2+2 forum could possibly get their hands around it.

Most scientists (and the companies they work for) realize that we will eventually need to move beyond oil, nobody is pretending that it'll last forever.

http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/002295.html#002295

You could stay up all night reading about energy developments, just fire away at Google.

Here's a word to Google: synthetic hydrocarbons


[/ QUOTE ]

That is from our previous thread on this topic. Where you and I part ways is that, although you have a good handle on this subject, you maintain a pessimistic view towards our current efforts to solve this problem , while I remain optimistic with regards to our research.

You maintain that hydrogen is both difficult to store and transport - which is true, now - but this technology is constantly evolving, and I believe we will find a way to make this easier...especially when we're talking about an energy source that addresses the finite nature of the earth's fossil fuel reserves, saving them for higher uses .


Why do I think H2 is inevitable? Put simply: economies of scale

The market for oil is growing at around 1.5%-3.5%/yr (depending on who you ask), while the market for wind energy and alternatives like H2 are doubling in size every 3 years . This demand will only continue to grow as oil prices rise and we inevitably approach the breaking point in the world oil market. H2 is more efficient, infinitely abundant, produces no emissions, and can be continuously renewed. The majority of the world's major energy players are determined to make it happen.

How can I possibly prove something that hasn't happened yet? I can't. Nor can you. Where we differ is that you're not buying into the H2 hopes. I am. At the same time, I'm also cognizant of other attempts to research the problem, such as synthetic hydrocarbons, etc.

There is so much research available on Hydrogen...I'd just be redundant in posting a bunch of links here that are optimistic on the subject. Do a Google on Hydrogen...read away!

http://www.emagazine.com/january-feb...0103feat1.html

[riverflush]

One last thing...

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, let’s conclude that a pure hydrogen solution just won’t cut it and move on to other energy sources.

[/ QUOTE ]


Do you realize how insane that sounds? You want to dismiss the research into Hydrogen when the industry is in its very infant stage? Does that make any sense? Because we have hurdles to get over with H2 we should just bail, when Hydrogen has the potential to solve all the problems with oil?

Huh?

That's like saying, "it's really difficult to cure AIDS, so we should just give up." It makes no sense. That's not how science works.

Anyway...that's also not going to happen . Too many major world players (private and public) are pushing a huge part of their stack into the center of the table and betting on Hydrogen. I believe we'll make it happen. See you in 20 years!

[Il_Mostro]

ok, first of all, I have done google searches on hydrogen, I have read a fair amount. I still have not found anyone that has a positive attitude towards a pure hydrogen economy that posts Numbers on how it will be solvable. Lots of pretty talk, no numbers on how we are to solve the enormous problems in generating the electricity needed.

You insist on calling hydrogen an energy source. Like I asked you before, you do realise that it is not, right? No amount of research will ever change that, that is basic physics, 2:nd law of thermodynamics. Please answer me on this one, because if you don't get this, there really is no point in talking to you about this.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do I think H2 is inevitable? Put simply: economies of scale

[/ QUOTE ]

If the basic application is done at loss, no scale in the world (exept 0) will save it
If we don't find a way to generate almost endless amounts of electricity, hydrogen will not be the answer for the future.

Looking through the two links you have provided I can see absolutly no mention on how much electricity will be needed. Like I said, in the UK, in order to run the transportation on H2 they need to increase generation by 500%. How, exactly, is that going to happen?

[Il_Mostro]

No, no, you misunderstand me. By all means, do the reaserch, as I said, i do belive H2 can be part of the solution for the future. But, and this is a big but, if we think H2 alone will save us, we are surely doomed

did you even read the articles I linked to? lots of numbers there, a lot more than I've seen at any pro-H2 page. If you have any links to calculations, please show me as I am genuinly interested.

[adios]

Wow a well thought out post and good thoughts that are appreciated by at least me. We've got an energy problem in this country, no doubt about that from my perspective. A major problem I see with hydrogen that I see is providing the infrastructure to support it. Natural gas (NG) may possibly be an effective fuel source but my understanding is that the U.S. will have to import NG in liquified form and there are a whole lot of issues regarding terrorist threats with tankers and storage facilities in the U.S. I think that as the price rises for fuel demand will abate some and consummers will adjust appropriately. BTW I posted an article about a year ago stating that oil production may have actually peaked already. Many people I come in contact with have been talking about energy prices for the last couple of years as being a potential problem. Now the chickens are coming home to roost so to speak. Meanwhile back at the ranch Viet Nam is the hot topic in the presidential race.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
We've got an energy problem in this country

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And the rest of the world. But since the US uses the most energy, both on per capita and in total terms, you have got the furthest to fall, so to speak.

[ QUOTE ]
A major problem I see with hydrogen that I see is providing the infrastructure to support it

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. Basically that infrastructure needs a lot of energy, to which end we of course can use H2, if only we find that infinite electrical generation capability...

[ QUOTE ]
Natural gas (NG) may possibly be an effective fuel source but my understanding is that the U.S. will have to import NG in liquified form

[/ QUOTE ]

Also correct [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] It's probably not a very good idea to build the infrastructure needed for a natgas economy, we will run out of that too, in a not very distant future.

[riverflush]

Il Mostro...

I just assumed the H2 as a carrier for energy was in the clear here...I've never challenged the "source" vs. "carrier" label. It's never been an issue in our post, and it's really just splitting hairs. A fuel cell converts it into electricity...that's basic stuff here. Hydrogen is the fuel for the conversion into electricity...which is the actually energy product.

2+2=4

Ok, now moving on.

I did read the articles and it's all good. I appreciate the sharing of info and knowledge. I just take the opposite stance on the issue. My point is: we don't know yet. H2 is only one part of our energy research (which I've said numerous times). I just happen to think that it will win out - time will tell.

[playerfl]

"more or less esoteric energy sources like cold fusion and zero-point energy is excluded. Fusion is debatable; as far as I have read the people working in the field says that if at all possible we might have a fusion reactor online in about 50 years, that’s too late."

first I would like to say that hyrogen will never be as good as fossil fuels, and ultimately we will not be satisfied with it. This means that research will go on until we have something better.

There has been a lot of progress in both zero point energy and low temperature fusion. Both zero point energy and low temperature fusion have been proven to exist in reproducable experiments in multiple labs. There are federal government grants for study in these areas, they are now legit.

We are in the same situation as when nuclear energy was experimentally proven in the 30's ( mathematically proven well before that). About a decade later we were blowing up cities with it and building power plants. Imagine being a common man in 1938 and being told that atoms could be split, and that the energy of one bomb could destroy an entire city.

I'm not sure which new tech will pan out first, but I beleive that at least one of them will pan out ( at least for military use ) in the next 30 years because of several factors:

1. hydrogen + conservation will not fill our needs, they will only be temporary measures until something better comes along.

2. The people that commercialize it will become fantastically wealthy

3. The military would want it for weapons even if we never ran out of oil.

[Il_Mostro]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never challenged the "source" vs. "carrier" label

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. The problem with writing, of course, not always clear.

I would really like to see my claims here refuted. The H2 economy is a really appealing thought. I just don't see where the energy is coming from. I'm fairly sure that the 1100 Twh for the UK really can't be shrunken very far, it's mostly physics.

There is also the problem of speed in moving from one system to the next. Since I belive we will most likely never again see really cheap oil, and if we do, it won't last. But i'm getting tired here, I can feel I'm staring to rant. I might post more on the subject later on.

But, if you can provide me with reasons and articles on why you take the opposite stance i'd be thankful.