Energy

A Pollution-Free Hydrogen Economy? Not So Soon

Electric cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells don't produce greenhouse-enhancing carbon dioxide. But producing hydrogen does-and if we want to reduce our petroleum dependence, we're going to have to reconcile ourselves to that fact.

  • July 11, 2003
  • By Richard A. Muller

Think hydrogen-the clean fuel of the future. It burns with oxygen to make water vapor, and only water vapor-no soot, no nitrous oxides, no carbon dioxide with its potential greenhouse warming. In his State of the Union message in January, President Bush announced a major new initiative. He proposed  $1.2 billion in research funding that he said would enable the United States to "lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles." Spurred by this new federal support, Bush said,  "our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free."  His surprise announcement met with enthusiastic applause.

Now here is a more pessimistic view of the hydrogen economy: huge open pit mines scarring much of Pennsylvania, Illinois, Utah, and Colorado. Billions of tons of carbon dioxide are dumped into the atmosphere every year from facilities that produce hydrogen-by burning the fossil fuels coal, oil, and natural gas.

Where is the truth? Undoubtedly somewhere in between-but it probably involves heavy burning of fossil fuels.

The key fact is this: Hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is only a way of storing and transporting it. Although hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe (and in the more immediate neighborhood, it makes up 90 percent of the atoms in the Sun and Jupiter), there is virtually no hydrogen gas on Earth. Our gravity is so weak that essentially all our primordial hydrogen-except that which bound itself into heavier compounds-escaped into space billions of years ago. So hydrogen fuel must be "manufactured" by extracting it from water and methane. You get out from hydrogen fuel only the energy you put into extraction, or from burning carbon in the process.

Water can be split into hydrogen and oxygen by electric current, the process known as electrolysis. Plain heat will do the trick too. Above 2,700 C water spontaneously decomposes. On a sufficiently hot fire (e.g., the oil well fires of Kuwait), water decomposes and then recombines when it cools above the well.

But splitting water is expensive, and we don't need the oxygen. There's a much cheaper way to produce hydrogen: spray steam on white-hot coals and out comes mostly hydrogen gas (40 percent) and carbon monoxide (50 percent), a mixture known appropriately as "water gas." It's the least expensive way to make hydrogen. Unfortunately, the carbon monoxide produced along with it is highly poisonous. To extract the last bit of energy, the carbon monoxide can be burned, and that turns it into the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.

The production of water gas began in earnest in the 1870s. The other common "manufactured" gas back then was coal gas, extracted from bituminous coal by heating it in an oxygen-free environment. Coal gas went to streetlamps and homes, and the more dangerous water gas was used by industry. Water gas is still extensively in steel manufacture and in the so-called Fisher-Tropsch process, which is used to make synthetic gasoline and alcohols.

In the 1920s, the discovery of large underground reserves of methane provided a cheaper alternative to coal gas. Since it wasn't manufactured, it was called "natural gas," the name still used today. Methane also replaced coal for water gas production. As with coal, producing hydrogen from methane yields abundant carbon monoxide that upon combustion becomes carbon dioxide.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

aadfsd@live.com

4 Comments

  • 439 Days Ago
  • 12/02/2010

Not so soon !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First of all hydrogen is an energy source.the only eason that someone would say that it isnt is,because those persons havent been working on this very thing for as many years as we have.We can produce hydrogen from a cartrige at pressures exceeding 300,000psi and at temperatures up to 6,000deg.We can do this a lot cheaper than producing gasoline.Your comments are somewhat premature because of your lack of research on the subject.we already have the solution,all thats left to do is to convince all you nay-sayers that your expounding on a subject you really know nothing about.

Reply

rico12story

1 Comment

  • 263 Days Ago
  • 05/27/2011

hydrogen economy slander

... -- to say that the hydrogen economy is wasteful or not efficient , is to buy into the fascist dogma of an elite fascist academic community ... -- but to actively promote and perpetrate such absurd notions , is to belong to such a corrupt and trash thinking bunch of buffoons ... -- forgive mii , but the negative labeling is most apropos , simply due to the fact that real and good academics don ' t twist the truth around , in order to justify a perspective that supports destructive big oil interests ...

... -- the glib use of the catch phrase that hydrogen isn ' t a fuel solution , it has to come from some where , has been dreamed up in a rand think tank session , and carefully planted , so as to give the impression that it actually undermines the hydrogen economy agenda ... -- well ; [ yes well , well , well ] , so does oil , and to not compare the amount of energy needed to produce oil to that of producing liquid hydrogen , is like every academic who made that inaccurate comparison failing a simple analogy comparison in a college gre examination ...

.. -- if wii compare the total amount of time and resources spent exploring , drilling , extracting , transporting , refining , and delivering oil , in relation to putting a huge steam turbine near to a hawaiian volcano fissure on the sea , and liquefying the hydrogen ON SITE for transport ... -- there is no comparison , wii have NO EXPLORATION , NO DRILLING , NO EXTRACTION NO REFINING ; ; ;  desalination , electrolysis , and liquefaction are preformed with a FREE non energy use once the plants are constructed ...

... -- the drilling , extraction and refining of oil are continuous heavy expenditures of energy , not to mention the enormous loss of energy for the refining of oil into the final petrochemical products ... 

... -- once the steam turbine , desalination , electrolysis and liquefaction plants are constructed , the production of liquid hydrogen is energy free , and the entire process is environmentally friendly ... -- there is no continual drain on resources , never any environmental danger , and the liquid hydrogen is ready for use AS IT LEAVES THE PRODUCTION SITE ...

... -- and finally , the construction of these hydrogen economy niches , is good for the construction sector , creates a permanent source of environmentally safe FREE ENERGY , and at the same time a PERMANENT FREE SOURCE OF POTABLE EFFICIENTLY TRANSPORTABLE WATER ... -- and that sadly enough , is why the elite trash of the world does not want a hydrogen economy , because it means THE END of that elites control of the planet , and the end of deserts , the end of poverty , the end of having to pay for free energy and water , the end of tyranny and feudal economic domination ... 

Reply

Advertisement

MAGAZINE

Can We Build Tomorrow's Breakthroughs?

Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.

Videos

Printing Parts

More

Advertisement

Technology Review Lists

TR50

Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:

American Superconductor

Ushahidi

Zynga

Goldwind Science and Technology

More

Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement