I didn’t make it to the environmental forum on Monday, but I’ve been evaluating what I can on the MA-05 candidates’ stances on the environment. Right now, the controversy for me centers around state Rep. Finegold’s $100 billion (with a B) proposal to have all federal buildings go “hydrogen fuel cell or solar power or both.” He has been largely focusing on hydrogen fuel cells.
Many people on Blue Mass Group have asked the question, so, Representative Finegold, is there a plan for producing hydrogen cleanly then?
I’ve been researching into the hydrogen fuel cell thing some and there’s serious problems. Yeah, it sounds really good when you read Jeremy Rifkin’s The Hydrogen Economy, but what are the practical obstacles? First, let me give you an overview of what the hydrogen energy model really is. I’m not sure even Finegold completely understands it, because in his commentary, he says, “I want to see every US Post Office and federal building with either a hydrogen fuel cell or solar power or both.”
But does Finegold realize that hydrogen itself is not an energy source? Energy has to come from somewhere. It’s not “put a hydrogen fuel cell on a building or in a car and use it.” No, the function that hydrogen would have in this scenario is that of a battery. Storing energy produced by another source in a usable form.
That’s been the first huge limiting factor in renewable energy production - how do you store it for the rainy day? In particular, solar. The sun only shines some of the time, so when it’s not shining, how do you get electricity, if you’re not using hydrocarbons, which after all, can burn night and day, 365 days a year? But this problem also appears with wind (which does not blow the same every day) and other renewable energy sources.
Up until recently, and even now, batteries have limits. The bulky sizes, low capacity levels, and degradation of that capacity over time, have all made battery storage the redheaded stepchild of renewable energy. Think of this as a bottleneck for transitioning to other types of power that are not as constant as hydrocarbon-based fuels.
In comes hydrogen. Using hydrogen as energy storage works thusly: let’s say you have a solar panel on your roof. It generates excess electricity than what your daytime use is. So that extra energy would then be used for electrolysis of plain, old, H2O…aka water…separating the H from the O and producing hydrogen and oxygen (well, O2). The oxygen is let go, the hydrogen captured. Electrolysis is an energy-sucking process - it takes energy to break the molecule up. But now, the resultant hydrogen becomes stored energy. Because let’s say it’s 10 pm, there’s no sun, and you turn on a light. The hydrogen fuel cell in your basement - storing the hydrogen in whatever form, gas, liquid, or solid - mixes that H with air. The air has O2, the hydrogen likes to bond with O2, and that marriage of the two elements produces energy - which can be captured and run through your wires as electricity.
That’s the basics…I don’t pretend to remember all the specifics, like regarding any extra electron atoms and where they go. But in the end, all it means is that hydrogen, once made, is an energy storage battery.
Though it sounds really hunky-dory, it might just not be the right solution. First, electrolysis is pretty inefficient. Someone once pointed that out to me, and in researching it, it appears they are right. Any research in the area of electrolysis has to focus on reducing the cost to produce a fuel cell - there’s not much you can do to change physics. There is also high-heat electrolysis, which is still stuck in the lab, and is not yet in production. Even high-heat has a conversion rate of maybe 50% - compared with generating hydrogen from natural gas, which has an 80% efficiency.
There’s another major limiting factor in the use of renewable energy in the first place, which is the efficiency of the energy capture. Current solar panels only capture about 25% of sunlight falling on them for conversion, because only a small range of wavelengths can affect the panel. There’s hope in that department, like with this.
Here’s some of my problems with Finegold’s proposal, bold as it is. It seems he doesn’t understand the difference between energy production and hydrogen, which really would only act like a battery. He has not answered the question of where that energy would be produced (because right now, hydrogen is by far most efficiently produced by natural gas, a hydrocarbon).
Another problem is that I have not seen him address energy use. A much better investment of most of his $100 billion would be an efficiency program that uses regulation and incentives to drive innovation in efficiency. I’ve heard crazy figures like people could reduce their footprint on the earth by up to 90% if only we developed the energy-saving products, processes, and lifestyles that are quite within our technological reach.
This would require standing up to big auto, big industry, and big oil. Get rid of the subsidies for drilling, obviously, but also raise efficiency standards for cars by tens of miles per gallon, in a short time span. We have the current technology, with hybrids and electric cars, just not the will. The Congress just might save GM’s bacon in the meantime, forcing them to be innovative with the rest of the auto industry, since they can’t seem to get off their bottom lines and do it themselves.
It would also mean efficiency standard for things like refrigerators, ceiling fans, air conditioners, TV’s (do they have to suck up all that power when they’re off??). Did you know that your ceiling fan could be more efficient, but that the industry killed any chance of that because the GOP Congress slipped an amendment into a bill that preempted the rights of states to impose higher standards?
The other side of that coin is incentives. Personally, I oppose tax breaks for big business as much as possible, because after the tax break or subsidy has passed its usefulness, big business has the money to lobby to keep it anyway (like property tax breaks on telephone polls for telecom, or the gianormous farm subsidy bill). I would like to see subsidies and tax breaks given to individuals, instead. So let’s say a new fridge that uses 50% less power came out this year, but it costs twice as much? Give the consumer the ability to pay for it with subsidies and tax breaks, instead of subsidizing the company. Same result, the product moves, becomes more popular, goes into mass production, and comes down in price over time. But when the time comes, it’ll probably be easier to lose the subsidy to the consumer than one direct to the business.
Whatever we do, it does have to be bold. $100 billion is completely reasonable. However, I am disappointed in the lack of concentration on reducing our energy use, the rhetoric that appears to replace scientific understanding for buzz words, and the inability to stand up to Big Oil and other industries in order to walk the fastest path away from hydrocarbons. I don’t think Finegold’s admittedly unspecific proposal (all I see is a press release, which is not a proposal, by the way) is the best…or most efficient…way.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:18 pm
All excellent points.
But, we must keep searching, for ways to improve efficiency, reduce energy requirements, and produce our energy with clean, renewable means.
It is interesting that nanotechnology, possible a signature of Lowell’s economic rebirth, could help in the process.
“A recent study by scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) demonstrates that solar cells can be made more efficient through the application of nanotechnology. DOE researchers state that “quantum dots” can convert more than 65 percent of solar energy into electricity, which could roughly double existing solar cell efficiency.”
August 1st, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Amen.
Nice explanation, too. I didn’t know quite how it worked, until now.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:30 pm
This may be of interest. It appears that we may have to use “dirty” sources of hydrogen for some time, but should be working toward a clean solution.
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=2239.php
August 1st, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Some fuel cells such as molten carbonate fuel cells are fueled with natural gas or other hydrocarbons. They are extremely efficient. Their efficiency is almost double the efficiency of the coal fired giant central stations when measured at the customer’s meter. You can see a listing of installations of these at hotels, colleges, sewage plants where they run on the sewage gases, and breweries where they run on the gases emitted in the brewing process. Try: fce.com Their cost is currently higher than central station generation, but when the volume of manufacturing gets higher, the cost will decline significantly. A program to install them at government buildings may help bring that cost decline.
Currently solid oxide fuel cells are being developed to run on coal gas. We have enough coal in the US to provide energy for 200 years. By then we will have extrmely low cost nuclear fusion power to use to electrolyze water for hydrogen. Look for progress on those solid oxide fuel cells by 2010.
August 2nd, 2007 at 1:31 am
1. Lawyers should avoid prescribing science or technology.
2. This will go the way of all government boondoggles. 90% of the money will be wasated the rest will be used with minimum efficiency.
3. The only way to get big stuff like this produced is corporations.
Now for the semi good news:
Here is one promising technology that is not getting the backing it needs to make or break it:
Bussard Fusion Reactor
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion
So I have decided to do an end run around the government by designing an open source fusion test reactor.
Any one care to help? You can start here:
IEC Fusion Newsgroup
IEC Fusion Technology blog
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:18 am
There’s a lot of untapped geothermal energy in America. It makes sense to use it for generating hydrogen since it’s not usually located near large populations. Iceland is using it for hydrogen generation.
According to A. Lovins there are plastic liners which could be retrofitted into our natural gas pipelines that would make them suitable to transport hydrogen so that existing infrastructure is a bonus.
Here’s a patent for a geothermal hydrogen generator.
“A deep well geothermal hydrogen generator for efficiently producing hydrogen gas with geothermal energy. The deep well geothermal hydrogen generator includes an electrolyzer positioned within a deep well, and a generator fluidly connected to the deep well and electrically connected to the electrolyzer for providing electrical energy to the electrolyzer. Water is provided to the upper portion of the deep well and passes through the generator thereby producing electricity. The water continues downwardly to the lower portion of the deep well at an increased pressure where the electrolyzer gasifies the water into hydrogen gas and oxygen gas. The hydrogen and oxygen are pressurized thereby forcing the same upwardly from the lower portion of the deep well.”
Tidal and wave energy are also huge untapped energy sources that could be used as primary electrical generation and the off peak excess could be used for hydrogen. It’s good to acknowledge restraints (like the laws of physics)but we also need to keep our imaginations in pursuit of unconventional solutions
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:02 am
Does it bother anyone else that Eileen Donoghue’s campaign is getting increasingly shrill? For someone who only identifies herself as the Mayor of Lowell (i.e. glorified city councilor), she seemingly has her minions launch weekly inane attacks on Niki Tsongas .. the YouTube clip .. and now “the” dean comment. Give us all a break. How self professed progressives on this site can support such a negative, petty and pathetic candidate is beyond me. At least Barry is trying to do something positive with the fuel cell boondoggle. Also, after his initial foray into negativism (questioning Barry’s support of choice), Jamie has campaigned in a positive manner. Desperate isn’t attractive.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:07 am
One of the main selling points about hydrogen is that no one area of the world can claim an undue influence over it’s production. There are many production methods and different geographies can use whatever methods make sense for their particular natrual resources. Many of these production methods are relatively ‘green’.
The problem is that, as of right now, the most cost expedient method of production involves the burning of fossil fuels. No doubt that as the price of fossil fuels rises other methods will become cost effective. The question is, should we start an artificially created market (with taxes, incentives, etc.) to boost the development of hydrogen technology in anticipation of this change, or is the risk of spurring more fossil fuel burning in the short term too great for the potential long term benefits.
The other thing that hydrogen fuel cells help with is that they encourage distributed generation. If you have a fuel cell battery in your building, for example, it makes more sense to include some solar panels or wind or geothermal generation in the building’s design. This distributed production will have a beneficial ripple effect by cutting into point generation, which usually involves fossil fuels.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:29 am
Hey Fifth: got any actual evidence that the Donoghue campaign released that clip? Then knock it off.
It seems to me, you’d rather just blame her for all the things happening to poor, poor, Niki.
It is, by the way, completely appropriate to call another candidate on a position that appears to be contrary to how they are portraying themselves to the voters. Finegold was really sloppy not to read or have his staff read through bills he put his name on. Twice.
If anyone’s shrill, that’d be Niki and her ‘Tsupporters’…they are the ones that took the Finegold/prochoice thing way too far, after it was apparent that Finegold really is prochoice, but was merely not paying attention to his job.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 am
I don’t mean to jump into the fray, but I’d just like to say Patrick Murphy has a post on the environmental debate that can be found here: http://www.patrickmurphyblog.com/
August 2nd, 2007 at 10:50 am
Fifth:
Why can’t we criticize Niki, her position on issues and her campaign without being called names? This is politics, isn’t it?
We want an election while some of you want a coronation.
August 24th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Hello, Your site is great. Regards, Valintino Guxxi