Talk:Hydrogen economy

From RationalWiki

Contents 1 Gen IV Nuclear Power plants 2 From Talk:CP 3 hydrogen vs. battery 4 Water Issues 5 Problems with renewables.

[edit] Gen IV Nuclear Power plants

The next generation of nuclear reactors is called Gen IV. While there are six (?) radically different concepts, the one that will emerge will produce hydrogen. So next generation, conventional fission power plants coupled with hydrogen vehicles is what I see in 20-30 years, the ultimate solution (50+ years from now) obviously being fusion.

Adversity to nuclear power - the only reason to hate Greenpeace and co. Editor at CP 17:17, 15 November 2007 (EST)

I tend to agree, nuclear power is safe now and getting safer and it can't possibly be more of a disaster in terms of waste disposal than fossil fuels are. Who the fuck cares if we end up making 100s of square kilometres of land radioactive wastes, how could that possibly be worse than making THE WHOLE FUCKING PLANET uninhabitable? I do think that more power plants should be built to exploit the natural synergy between nuclear and hydro power, though. Nuclear plants need lots of water for cooling, and can't really moderate the rate at which they generate electricity. People use less electricity at night, so use the excess to pump cooling water to an upper lake and use it as a potential energy reservoir to generate extra electricity during the day. --Jeeves 18:24, 15 November 2007 (EST)

I tend to disagree. The plants themselves, yes, are quite safe these days. The waste, however, is far more dangerous than what was mined out of the ground (longer half lives), and we as yet have devised no way to dispose of it whatsoever. So I now live within 20 miles (30 km) of two "short term" nuclear waste repositories - at a power plant and at a Navy sub refitting yard. Also, nukes can be regulated as to their output - the damping rods are inserted or removed. Also, on the grid as a whole, if the nuke runs 100% all the time, coal and gas burning plants can be run slower at times.

Jeeves, got any easy links so I can read about the hydrogen-producing fission plants?

Fusion, on the other hand, would be awesome, if we could figure out a way to do it. Presumably, and interestingly, electrolyzed water hydrogen would contain deuterium and tritium that could be siphoned off to run fusion plants. Of course, we already are the daily beneficiaries of more safe fusion energy than we could ever need or use... human ^{be in} 18:32, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Don't forget that fusion as we know it today is hardly clean when it comes to radioactive waste. In mag containment, you get huge amounts of induced radioactivity in the containment equipment, and eventually it needs to be disposed of and replaced.

As regards fission, sure we can't really do anything about the fuel other than bury it and wait more or less forever. But is that really a problem? It's exchanging a local problem (potential leak of radioactive material in the ground water, warning hypothetical future civilisations of what we've done) for a global one (oh god, we're doomed if we keep trying to burn fossil fuels.) I'm over simplifying, but that's the essence. Nuclear fuel reprocessing keeps on getting more efficient year on year, and it's only a stopgap while we develop something better anyway.

When I say "can't really moderate their output" what I mean is there is a lower bound on the plant's electricity production since you need self-sustained fission, unless you're willing to throw away potential energy which is just stupid. If you can do with even one less nuclear power plant because you've got a mass storage strategy for night time that you can harness during the day, that seems all to the good to me.

(Also, I'm not the person to be asking about hydrogen producing nuke plants, that would be Editor. I didn't know anything about that until about 10 minutes ago) --Jeeves 19:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Don't ask me either, I'm less familiar with the next generation reactors than with today's (Soviet and European) ones. Certainly nuclear fuel reprocessing is central to their development, but there are political concerns regarding fuel. Editor at CP 02:41, 16 November 2007 (EST)

In reverse order, oops, wrong person asked, sorry. And I think you are minimizing the hazard of nuclear waste. Fossil fuel waste is nasty, sure - air pollution, greenhouse gases, oil spills, etc. But a little plutonium in the water will, er, ruin your whole day. Keep in mind that fission plants make waste that is far more toxic and for far longer than the fuel that was enriched to run them. human ^{why is there a weird line through the "h" in my username?} 20:08, 15 November 2007 (EST)

About risks and safeguards of nuclear waste, I suggest reading english language material at www.posiva.fi and www.skb.se , respectively the finnish and swedish agencies (?) for final disposal of spent nuclear fuel (the most radioactive waste). In both Countries final disposal is at an advanced phase. Posiva and SKB are funded by the energy operators, who must bear all the costs of disposal by law. In Finland www.stuk.fi is the governmental supervising agency, you may find interesting papers there too. I can just say that the hazards of nuclear waste are way exaggerated. Editor at CP 02:40, 16 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] From Talk:CP

This is why conservatives are totally in love with hydrogen. It lets them seem to care about global warming, without having to do all those unpleasant parts like reducing energy consumption, or social engineering via green taxes. The whole hydrogen economy thing is a complete load of pseudo-scientific bullshit. Yeah, sure, hydrogen fuel cells might be a great thing to have because of the energy density, but first things first, we're going to need some decent way of generating clean energy. If conservatives were sane, they might think about biodiesel as a cheap, look-like-caring approach to global warming. It's like 80% better than the hydrocarbon version greenhouse gas wise, and you don't have to buy a new car... --Jeeves 16:53, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Explain, plz: "pseudo-scientific". --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:58, 15 November 2007 (EST)

'Cos there can be no such thing as a hydrogen economy. It's a storage technology, not a power source. We could have a "50% efficient solar power economy", or a "controlled nuclear fusion economy" if you want to get in to plausible science fiction, but there can never ever be such thing as a hydrogen economy. --Jeeves 17:03, 15 November 2007 (EST)

I see. Why not? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:06, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Huh? I don't know if I'm not explaining it right... Are you just curious or do you disagree with me here? Anyway, imagine if I coined the phrase "lead-acid battery economy"... It doesn't make sense, right? Where do the lead acid batteries that form the basis of your economy come from? There's obviously some precursor here that's the real basis of your economy. Same thing with hydrogen. Our current economy is by and large based around hydrocarbons, which are to some extent "elementary" and "free" in that you don't have to do anything to make crude oil or natural gas, it's just there coming out of your well. Hydrogen isn't free in the same way. Even if your cars run on hydrogen, you're still a hydrocarbon economy because that's the only thing we've got other than nuclear fission that could possibly satisfy our energy needs right now. --Jeeves 17:17, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Right. Of course, even in a "hydrogen economy", hydrogen is not the basic source of energy, but it would still be used to power a lot of daily processes, which does make the term at least somewhat semantically defensible. Besides, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that renewable energy sources could be used to produce hydrogen - wind energy, for example, which may not be an economical source of hydrogen at the moment, but could be in the future. Even more to the point, hydrogen economy is essentially a theoretical economic model, which is why I can't really see how it could be pseudo-scientific - it doesn't really claim to be scientific in the first place. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:36, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Just a quick comment: the fact that you could use renewable energy sources to produce hydrogen is irrelevant. You could use that renewable energy somewhere else. Editor at CP 17:45, 15 November 2007 (EST)

That's... a really really weird way to make an argument. Saying that you first have to process hydrogen doesn't negate the fact that there is money to be made in it, does it? Also, petrochemicals might be "free" but there are huge costs hurdles to overcome before you can actually use the stuff. Lurker 17:30, 15 November 2007 (EST)

It's not about money, it's about energy. You know, the pet peeve of Evolutionists, the Laws of Thermodynamics. You don't find free hydrogen, you must spend energy to produce it. Instead hydrocarbons are just found and "picked". Editor at CP 17:38, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Thermo... evolution... wow my head exploded a little bit there. It's better now. Lurker 20:49, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Well hydrogen (or compressed air) cars take pollution away from the cities. But from a global energy and warming point of view almost nothing changes - as long as nuclear power isn't used. Editor at CP 17:20, 15 November 2007 (EST)

(Editor beat me to it, by being less long winded, but...) You're missing the point, forget money in this context. At this scale, money is merely an abstraction of oil futures. Think of the energy budget. Yes, drilling a well, fractional distillation, storage and transport of the useful fractions and sales of the final product all require energy. But here's the thing, all these processes use *less* energy than the oil you're processing contains, so you're a net producer in our economy. Now consider hydrogen. Our hydrogen manufacturer is perhaps electrolysing sea water to produce the hydrogen, that process can never be more than 100% efficient. The hydrogen producer is a net consumer in our energy economy. You can't base an economy on a consumer, there's no way that can work. --Jeeves 17:45, 15 November 2007 (EST)

To put it simply, in order to prepare the hydrogen in the first place, at least the same amount of energy (if not more) will have to be provided - and that will probably from hydrocarbons, again. We'd still be burning just as much oil, we'd just be doing it in processing plants instead of in our cars. Uchiha 17:49, 15 November 2007 (EST)

A lot of the stuff about the hydrogen economy that I've seen here in the UK has been actually integrating it with a completely different, subject which is only related by the fact that it also mentions hydrogen - fusion. Sure, it's not going to be actualised for ages, but we in the EU are closing! -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Hydrogen producing fission comes well before fusion. Editor at CP 17:58, 15 November 2007 (EST)

But is a) too limiting for resources, and b) potentially dangerous. Have ye not watched 24/Spooks? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

a) and b) not so. I haven't seen 24, but I know the Simpsons by heart. Editor at CP 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Deuterium-Tritium fusion seems most likely a short lived "hydrogen economy" for first generation commercial fusion power plants. I guess someone has probably already coined the phrase "helium economy" for more economic types of fusion... But yeah, I agree us in Europe and thems in Japan can really pat themselves on the back for being forward looking and investing vast sums of money in research in fusion. I've read the next generation joint reactor is going to be the first to do better than break even, so they're clearly getting some where. --Jeeves 18:12, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Not to disrupt this really interesting conversation, but I wonder if it might not be worth making a Hydrogen economy page and shifting this bit of talk there, where it can get a more worthy showcase? --Kels 18:02, 15 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] hydrogen vs. battery

Obviously, the "hydrogen economy" is not a new energy source. It's a "new" way to store and transport energy, however.

As fossil fuels become scarcer and more expensive, other energy sources become more attractive (wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal, etc.). However, these source tend to produce electricity. Now, 'tricity can be moved to stable locations relatively easily via power lines, but to power transportation (except for 'lectric trains and trams), it needs to be made portable (as, for instance, diesel and gasoline are). The question is mostly whether the best way to store and then later use the electricity is via battery charging and discharging, or electrolysis of water and subsequent burning of hydrogen. It's a race of technologies, with batteries in the lead in terms of installed base (hybrid cars). While both directions can be pursued, the battery only requires buying a new car (truck, motorcycle, etc.). The hydrogen route requires an entirely new distribution network, including electolysis plants, liquid hydrogen tankers and/or trucks, transfer and retail sale locations everywhere, before a single vehicle can switch to the technology.

So it's probably not a very good idea.

Additionally, battery technology allows on-site small installation recharging, like rooftop solar panels on cars and houses to provide some of the energy without any strain on distribution technologies. human ^{be in} 18:26, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Just some perspective on the above; nuclear isn't actually going to be a long term fix because just as there is "peak oil" there is also going to be a peak in isolable fissonable materials. So nuclear is a stop-gap option, it's not a long term option.

Hydrogen fuel cells are a form of a battery, actually; the real problem is storing the hydrogen. You don't want to have a Hindenberg on your car. Hence why people are looking into chemical absorption into nanotubes or some way to reversibly put hydrogen in (an admittedly vague) "matrix." I do not view hydrogen as an ideologically based solution, it's just really far off in the future. Admittedly, perhaps the Bushites have emphasized it to shield the attention from the dreadful environmental policies, but the scientitific community has discussed this independent of politicians for some time.

Fuel cells are real--this isn't psuedoscience. They've existed for quite some time, although the technology will have to be improved. Hydrogen can, at least in theory, be produced with sunlight powering the electrolysis. The only emission is water--no carbon. Again it's a technological problem, in reality.

And WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. The oil will run out. Sooner than a lot of people think. VirileSterile^yawn! 19:19, 15 November 2007 (EST)

And the sad part is, there's a lot of money to be made improving battery technology, improving solar panel yield, making and installing panels, building windmills (I want one!), improving efficiency, building the "safe hydrogen battery", and developing solutions we haven't even thought of yet. human ^{be in} 20:11, 15 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Water Issues

Isn't hydrogen usually made from water? With the current droughts (which have been made far worse by the reliance on both nuclear and carbon fuel plants), would turning water into hydrogen just make those worse? Or is it possible to make hydrogen from non-potable water, like seawater? Researcher 21:09, 15 November 2007 (EST)

I think the plans are usually to electrolyse seawater, yes. You can do it at home on a small scale with a DC power supply. Keep away from buildings. human ^{be in} 21:15, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Thank you. Researcher 21:16, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Actually, I don't think so. I think they take methane CH4 and water and make syngas. See the production part about hydrogen at wikipedia. Fossil fuels are still rather cheap--for now. VirileSterile^yawn! 22:20, 15 November 2007 (EST)

CH₄ + H₂O --> CO +3 H₂ (reaction for syngas)

3H₂ + 3/2 O₂ --> 3 H₂O (essentially the reaction inside a fuel cell)

CO + 1/2 O₂ --> CO₂ (gotta do something with it; burning it gets you heat)

-------------------------------------------- (add them up into the overall reaction)

CH₄ + 2 O₂ --> CO₂ + 2 H₂O (this just so happens to be the same reaction as combusting methane in the first place)

Lurker 22:44, 15 November 2007 (EST)

The short answer: Yes, you're absolutely right. CO₂ is the thermodynamic well. Essentially syngas formation is a "controlled" combustion reaction, in that you don't get CO₂.

But in the long run it will be advantageous to switch to hydrogen, if the technology can be developed. It's really the same story as photochemical cells. They are cleaner and they could be more widely used, but it's still cheaper at this time to burn petroleum. In the future, it will probably be easier to electrolyze water to hydrogen and oxygen, but we're not there yet. And we we're not going to get there unless research is funded to make electrolysis more efficient. And given that from what I've read, the error bar for when we hit the peak for cheap oil and natural gas is like 30 years, we need to start now. (More than a few people even think we're at the peak...)

There ain't enough wind power or hydroelectric power to last us forever. Some biofuels are promising, particularly the algae-based conversion to ethanol (see National Geographic a month or two ago). (Corn isn't all that great--that's where the Bush administration is wasting it's time. You only get about 10% more energy than you put in. With some of the other biofuels that are being developed, it's much higher.) But there is no clear-cut solution as of yet, and hence researching multiple lines of energy production, storage, use, etc., is necessary.

What's really eerie is that gas prices have gone up, not down, this fall--that's not a good sign. It's a sign of the weak American dollar, the increasing presence of China, and the increasingly hard time of getting oil. (Read The End of Oil. Good book.) Energy producers going to have to switch back to coal to power plants--more CO₂--or get to harder to get sources of oil--more expensive--or do more refining to heavy oil sources--more expensive and energy consumptive. And even coal is getting harder to find--why do you think all of a sudden there are more accidents? Because they have to dig deeper, deeper.

We are in trouble unless we can get a truly better source of energy, and I for one will vote in the next election based on who has the best energy policy. Global warming is linked with this, obviously, but solving one can help to solve the other. In many ways the energy problems scare me more than global warming, but hopefully we can solve both. VirileSterile^yawn! 23:14, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Perhaps we could build an article on that bugbear, peak oil. And link it to peak uranium. ? Feel free to unred anyway anyone wants to. human ^bean 23:49, 15 November 2007 (EST)

Maybe also an abiogenic oil article, that would probably fall under woo, though it might also be a parallel to what evolution must have looked like to "scientists" around 1840. CЯacke®

"There ain't enough wind power or hydroelectric power to last us forever", no, but there will be a relatively steady supply driven by the sun. We won't "run out" like with fossil or radioactive fuels. There just won't be enough to meet all our needs from those two sources. I'm a big fan of improving photovoltaic conversion... human ^troll 12:17, 16 November 2007 (EST)

True again, although the sun doesn't always shine with enough intensity for it to be efficient. (I remember reading something about the angle of the sunlight in the Northeast US where lots o' energy is consumed isn't stellar as well as the cloud cover was somewhat problematic, particularly in winter.)Likely it's a combo deal that will have to be done. VirileSterile^yawn! 13:20, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Yes, I was being a bit idealistic - sure, overall, the sun bombards us with more energy than we've ever dreamed of using, but on top of the conversion issues, there are also distribution ones. And, yes, solar up here in New England is sketchy at best. human ^clues 13:39, 16 November 2007 (EST)

[edit] Problems with renewables.

The problem with renewable resources is not whether they will "last forever" - they will obviously last as long as the the wind blows, the rain falls, and the tide moves ands the sun shines. The problems are: 1. Is there sufficient ambient energy in the world to meet its energy demands. 2. Do we have (or will we ever have) the technology to capture it. 3. If we do have the technology to capture it are we prepared to tolerate the environmental impacts that such capturing would entail.--Bob^{bing up} 13:49, 16 November 2007 (EST)

1. absolutely yes. I don't have the figures at my fingertips, but the sun provides us with a huge amount of energy. 2. we're trying, but it's tough work. 3. interesting question, I suppose it depends on what the technology would entail. If we had to cover 1/3 of our land mass with solar panels, that might be a disaster. If all we had to do was build them over everything we have already built/paved/etc., it might be an improvement. human^{ly possible} 14:23, 16 November 2007 (EST)

1. for the moment absolutely not, and probably never will. But they will be an important contributor to overall energy supply. 2. The biggest problem. For the moment, every kW of installed wind turbine capacity requires a kW of "base" energy, this being the guaranteed 24h supply from conventional power plants. Another consideration is the need of transporting this energy to where it is to be used. Big steps forward are taken every year none-the-less in renewable energy technology. 3. I hope not. The surface per unit of power that for example wind turbines need is prohibitive, specially when considering where wind turbines are installed - usually wind availability and beauty of environment go hand in hand, at least in several European Countries. Editor at CP 14:37, 16 November 2007 (EST)

You know, I've seen so many different answers to question 1. that I'm confused. Some apparently well informed sources say "Yes, of course." others say, "No, no chance." It's interesting to see that reflected here. Although it may depend on how you interpret the question and the one that follows it. In one sense the sun gives us a lot of energy so "yes", on the other hand we can't realistically capture it so, "No".--Bob^{bing up} 15:20, 16 November 2007 (EST)

I have copied the above conversation to Talk:Renewable energy as it seems more apt there.--Bob^{bing up} 15:24, 16 November 2007 (EST)