3 hydrogen

8/12/2019 3 Hydrogen

1/5

the Skeptic, Spring 2005 - Page 25

The hydrogen economy will one dayrevolutionise the way we use energy.Or so its proponents claim. Whyshould a sceptic be interested? Is itreasonable to be sceptical about atechnological innovation whose timehas simply not yet arrived? Isnt thiskind of thing rather obscure andhard for the average sceptic to un-derstand? Shouldnt we sceptics juststick to our usual targets, like super-stitions, miracles, New Age nos-trums, alternative medicine, elusivemonsters and the like?

These are all fair questions. But Ithink the hydrogen economy is spe-cial. Its promises of clean, boundlessenergy, of a future cure for globalclimate change, look too good to be

true. As well as this traditional sig-nal for triggering sceptical arousal,there are other aspects of the hydro-gen economy that ought to concernsceptics, as I hope to make clear.

What is it?

The hydrogen economy is a term fora new way of delivering and usingenergy. In brief, it describes a futureenergy scenario where the gas hy-drogen will take the place of fossil

fuels like oil, natural gas and coal inour energy systems. Hydrogen wouldbe reticulated like natural gas, andvehicles would refuel with hydrogen

at something like our present petrolstations.

Once youre aware of it, the hydro-gen economy seems to pop up every-where. Popular articles on the sub-ject are regularly seen innewspapers and magazines. Hydro-

gen-powered fuel cells get frequentmentions. Governments and environ-mentalists love it and a great deal ofpublic money, billions of dollars infact, is being thrown at the techno-logical obstacles standing in the wayof a practical hydrogen economy.

What are its promises?

This is typically what you will see inarticles on the hydrogen economy:

Oil and gas (fossil fuels) are

running out and we need something

to replace them.

Hydrogen is a wonderfully

clean and energetic fuel, which

burns to give pure water.

The sources of hydrogen are

inexhaustible and secure no more

reliance on the oil cartels of the

Middle East etc.

Fuel cells running on hydro-

gen will drive electric vehicles qui-etly and cleanly.

Hydrogen will end the atmos-

The H ydr ogen

Economy

Tom Biegler grew up and was educated inSydney. After several years of post-doctoral

study abroad, he joined the CSIRO in Mel-bourne as a research scientist. He publishedwidely on fuel cell and mineral chemistry

before appointment as Divisional Chief. Sinceretiring he has consulted on fuel cell commer-cialisation. He is a Fellow of the Australian

Academy of Technological Sciences andEngineering and of the professional institutesfor chemists and metallurgists. Tom lives in

Melbourne.

It seems like a simplesolution, but is it?

Article


2/5Page 26 -the Skeptic,Spring 2005

pheric pollution caused by fossil fuel

combustion.

The threat of global climate

change will be defeated.

These are all very attractivepropositions. No wonder billions ofdollars are going towards making itall happen.

Sounds great whats the catch?

Lets start by putting hydrogen intoits chemical context. School stu-dents will know that hydrogen is achemical element, number one onthe chemical Periodic Table, a gasthat arrives in the laboratory in a

brightly marked red cylinder towarn of its combustible, and there-fore rather dangerous, nature. Thatit burns to give water is also anelementary chemical fact known toany school student.

Hydrogen gas has a low density,is difficult to liquefy and is chemi-cally reactive with many materials.So the design of an energy systemaround hydrogen presents manyengineering and other technical

challenges regarding storage, trans-port, reticulation and end usage.Those are some of the catches.

But the main one is much morefundamental and serious. It is thatisolated hydrogen doesnt exist innature. It has to be made, manufac-tured, produced, synthesised however you want to put it. And tomake it we have to use energy,which must come from somewhereelse. So hydrogen cant replace oiland gas, because its simply not a

fuel in the sense we normally usethe word. Coal, oil and gas come outof the ground as ready-to-usesources of energy, energy that origi-nally came from the sun and,through photosynthesis, was accu-mulated and stored in plant matterover many millions of years whilegeological processes converted it toour present fossil fuels.

Sure, once its been manufac-tured, hydrogen can be used like a

fuel. But it really is more like elec-tricity, a carrier of energy from oneplace to another. And, exactly like

electricity, it is indeed very clean atthe point where you use it. Unfortu-nately, that has absolutely nothingto do with how clean or dirty theprocesses are at its source, and

therefore how much overall pollu-tion it causes, which also makes it

just like electricity.So, lets get cracking and make

some hydrogen. How is it done?This is where things get interesting.Hydrogen is presently a commonindustrial chemical, produced inquantities of tens of millions oftonnes annually, largely for use inthe fertiliser, petrochemical andfood industries. Most of the worlds

hydrogen (upwards of 90%) is madefrom fossil fuels. The rest is synthe-sised in electrolysis plants, mainlyusing hydroelectricity (because itscheap). Only that last 10% is madewithout generating the greenhousegas carbon dioxide (CO

2).

So, the vast majority of todayshydrogen comes from processes thatturn out the same pollutants we aresupposed to be trying to avoid!

Even worse, the thermodynamic

laws of the universe make it quitecertain that the available energy inthe processed hydrogen will be lessthan in the primary energy source,whether it be fossil fuel or hydro-electricity. When you make hydro-gen from, say, oil, you must losesome of that fuels energy contentduring the production process. Theend result is that, for a givenamount of energy ultimately gener-ated by burning that hydrogen, youwill be creating more pollution than

if you had burned the fossil fuelitself. This is hardly what we areafter.

What about abundance? Here thedoublespeak really cuts in. Therhetoric says that hydrogen is abun-dant, even inexhaustible, but thisis only in the form of water (H

2O).

As we saw above, isolated hydrogendoes not exist in nature. It is com-pletely misleading to promote theabundance of hydrogen in H

2O to

justify hydrogens role in futureenergy supplies. One could equallysay that oxygen is abundant in

water. Try telling that to a drown-ing man.

As for security, the hydrogen sup-ply can only ever be as secure as thesupplies of energy needed to make

it. Just how the hydrogen economymakes future energy supplies moresecure is never made clear.

To analyse its effect on green-house emissions and global warm-ing, one always has to go back tothe energy used in making the hy-drogen. If the source is a fossil fueland generates CO

2then globally we

can only be worse off because, aspointed out above, unavoidable en-ergy losses mean that more CO

2in

total gets released per unit of finalenergy consumed.

The inescapable conclusion isthat fully eliminating greenhouseemissions will require that all thehydrogen in the hypothetical hydro-gen economy must be made usingnon-fossil fuel sources. Naturallythis is the Holy Grail for the hydro-gen economy. The prospects of find-ing it are discussed below.

The story is not entirely negative.

There may sometimes be worth-while local benefits from using hy-drogen, even though the net resultis greater total pollution. For exam-ple, the environmental benefits ofan emission-free vehicle on a cityroute might justify a hydrogen pro-duction plant that pollutes the dis-tant countryside. This kind of argu-ment is much the same whether thevehicle runs on hydrogen or electric-ity.

And, unlike electricity, hydrogen

can, at a price, be physically storedin a tank or reservoir. An energyeconomy that primarily generatedelectrical power (eg, from nuclear,solar, or wind energy sources) mighttherefore benefit from convertingand storing some of its energy out-put as hydrogen. Electricity can bestored too, for example in a largebattery system, so there needs to bea sound technical and economiccomparison between the alternative

carriers and storage methods.One proposed way of dealing with

fossil fuel emissions of CO2is to

Hydrogen Economy


3/5


capture them by methods such assequestration in undergroundstorages. Sequestration of CO

2by-

product, controversial as it is, wouldundoubtedly be more effective at a

large fossil-fuelled hydrogen plantthan at numerous smaller, distrib-uted engines (as in motor cars) orgenerators running on fossil fuels.Once again, this reasoning also ap-plies to the CO

2emitted from a

large power station, so a choice stillneeds to be made between hydro-gen- and electric-powered transport,etc.

Thus, there certainly could besome benefits from using hydrogen.

Its just that the spiels for the hy-drogen economy go well beyondthese benefits. And the spiels arenot simply over-enthusiastic. Theyare full of half truths and loose sci-ence. Arguably, there has not beenenough scepticism.

Where did it all start?

The Hydrogen Economy is a phrasewith a smooth and seductive ring toit. Perhaps it was coined by some

marketing guru? No, it wasnt. Men-tioned as far back as 1923, the con-cept received its first real promotionin the 1975 bookEnergy: The Solar-hydrogen Alternativeby an interna-tionally renowned academicelectrochemist, Professor John OMBockris. At the time, Bockris was in

Australia as Professor of Chemistryat Flinders University, Adelaide,but he spent the next 30 years or soat Texas A & M University.

His book on hydrogen makes itclear that Bockris was driven al-most entirely by his view that fossilfuels would soon be exhausted. Hewas unconcerned about carbon diox-ide, which was not even consideredas a pollutant in those days. Andfears of global warming/climatechange were still decades away.

Despite the books title, Bockrissaw the future primary sources ofhydrogen energy as both nuclearand solar. His central argument for

the hydrogen economy was thateither of those energy sources wouldhave to be located at great distances

from end-users (nuclear near oceancooling water, solar in the desert),that transmitting electricity oversuch distances would be costly andthat converting the energy into hy-

drogen and piping it to users wasthe way to go.

Thats it. Bockris, the foremostchampion of the hydrogen economy,said nothing about hydrogen as aninexhaustible source of energy toreplace fossil fuels (which it isnt)and it was too early for him to beconcerned about climate change.His whole proposition rested onengineering calculations, now morethan 40 years old, of the relative

costs of cable and pipeline transmis-sion of energy. Those calculations,incidentally, are not at all supportedby more recent work.

Since Bockris book, climatechange has risen to be the mostcritical environmental concern ofour times and has clearly becomethe major driver of the recent inter-est in hydrogen. But there has alsobeen an element of technology pullfrom the end of the chain, that is,

where the hydrogen is to be finallyused. The idea of much of our roadtransport being driven by pollution-free, hydrogen-powered fuel cellshas gained huge appeal. Fuel cellsare battery-like devices that convertcertain chemicals, including hydro-gen, directly into electricity, withoutcombustion in the usual sense. Theyhave a reputation for exceptionallyhigh efficiencies, which adds totheir attraction. More about thatbelow.

The real meaning of the hydrogeneconomy

It should now be clear that, to makeany sense as a saviour of the planet,the hydrogen economy must actu-ally work as either a renewable en-ergy economy or a nuclear economy.Its prospects therefore depend, asthings stand, on the prospects thatrenewable (solar, wind, tide, bio-mass etc) or nuclear energy will beable to replace the energy we nowget from fossil fuels.

So why is the hydrogen economy

terminology so much more popularthan a renewable energy economy(no need to mention a nuclear en-ergy economy, which comes last inthe popularity stakes)? Well, it sure

sounds sexier. And it gets aroundthe problem that everyone knowshow long we have been waiting forrenewable energy to become eco-nomic; we might perhaps be gettingimpatient with, or even scepticalabout, its unfulfilled promise. Hy-drogen is new and, well, obscure.

With hydrogen, cynicism andscepticism can now go happily handin hand.

Is there any hope for hydrogen?It is unscientific to claim that some-thing like the hydrogen economycant and wont happen. But surelywe can apply a suitably scepticaltest to indicate what the real pros-pects are.

Hydrogen was discovered in1766. The nature of its combustionwith oxygen to form water was in-terpreted correctly over the nextdecade or so. Its been around for a

long time and is now an industrialchemical produced from fossil fuelsin huge quantities by technologi-cally advanced industries. As dis-cussed above, if it were being pro-duced for its energy content, itwould be causing more greenhouseemissions than by burning the origi-nal fossil fuel. Of course, until nowat least, it has never been intendedfor use as a fuel, so no-one has wor-ried about those extra emissions.

Now there is a new concern, thatburning fossil fuels is causing globalclimate change. We could fix this ifonly we had new technology tomake hydrogen much more cheaplythan at present and without anygreenhouse emissions the HolyGrail mentioned above.

So lets spend a lot of money andif we try hard enough surely we willdiscover such new technology!Never mind hydrogens long history.Never mind that the wholly desir-

able goal of clean renewable energyhas remained elusive for decades,despite huge investment, because


4/5Page 28 -the Skeptic,Spring 2005

renewable sources just dont havethe continuity and intensity to beadequate fossil fuel substitutes.Suddenly, somehow, merely becausewe want it to be so, new ways of

making cheap hydrogen will be dis-covered and renewable energy willstart to look economic.

Lets apply the sceptical test.Exceptional propositions requireexceptional evidence. The proposi-tion is that hydrogen, which hasbeen around for over two centuries,is going to replace fossil fuels andsave the planet. But the evidence isnot there, only wishful thinking. Itdoes not pass the test.

This does not mean, of course,that all research and developmentrelated to hydrogen ought to stop.Scientists and engineers shouldcontinue their search. But the in-vestment must be tailored to theprospects of success.

What about fuel cells?

For most of its proponents, the hy-drogen economy goes hand in handwith devices known as fuel cells;

fuel cells running on hydrogen will,they say, be the engines of the fu-ture, generating our electric powerand driving electric vehicles.

Fuel cells are simply refuelablebatteries. Like the familiar kinds ofhousehold and car batteries, theygenerate electricity from chemicalreactions going on inside them. Butin ordinary batteries, the ingredi-ents of those reactions are built intothe battery. Once they run out, yourphone or iPod stops until thosechemical ingredients are regener-ated by charging (or replacing) thebattery. In a fuel cell the ingredi-ents are continuously replenished.It keeps making electricity as longas it is fed with fuel and air (orbreaks down!).

Hydrogen is definitely one of thebest fuels for a fuel cell. However,dont forget that it can also be areasonable fuel for an ordinary in-ternal combustion engine. Once

engine technologists were asked (inthe past they would have regardedit as a silly idea), they had no trou-

ble in modifying a petrol engine torun on hydrogen just look at theFord web site for example.

Unfortunately, the faith in fuelcells as the engines of the future

rests on rocky foundations. Theyhave the reputation of being simple,cheap and, most of all, highly effi-cient, that is, they convert more ofthe energy contained in a fuel intouseful output than do conventionalengines.

The reality is different. They arenot simple or cheap. As for effi-ciency, Professor Bockris was agreat promoter of their superiority.His argument, adopted by many

since, is abstrusely scientific, butgoes something like this. All com-bustion engines have theoreticallimitations to their efficiency attrib-utable to the famous Carnot ther-modynamic cycle. Fuel cells do nothave those limitations. Thereforethey are more efficient.

Stripped thus to its essentials,the fallacious reasoning is clear; itignores all the other factors thatmight limit fuel cell efficiencies, and

there are many. Nevertheless, thefallacy still has huge currency.Electrochemists are familiar with

the causes of inefficiency in a fuelcell battery. They includeoverpotential (which, despite thename, actually decreases the cellvoltage as the current increases),internal resistance, partial fuel uti-lisation and fuel crossover. None ofthese is easily amenable to theoreti-cal calculation; they need to bemeasured in practice.

The facts are that neither com-bustion engines nor fuel cells per-form close to their theoreticalefficiencies. The theories are prettymuch academic curiosities as far asreal performance is concerned. Inpractice, most fuel cells are not par-ticularly efficient and barely com-petitive with combustion engines.

There are some niche applica-tions where fuel cells might be supe-rior. If the combined heat and elec-

tric power generated are usable (theCHP concept), then fuel cells havesome attractions. And it might be

argued that it is early days for fuelcells and their efficiency potential isnot yet fully tapped. Maybe. Theywere famously invented in 1838(thats not a misprint) and have

been intensively developed eversince the late 1950s, initially forpowering early space missions, soone could equally argue that fuelcells have had plenty of time toshow their mettle.

In short, fuel cells cannot inthemselves provide the kind of justi-fication needed to go chasing afterthe hydrogen economy.

Does any of this really matter?

If this were just a debate betweenscientists or engineers, who cares? Ithink there are a few reasons for usto be concerned.

The first should be a principleclose to the hearts of sceptics. If thetruth is being bent, if we are beingdeluded, then that alone shouldarouse our interest.

Then theres the matter of money.By far the greater part of the totalmulti-billion dollar expenditure is

from the public purse. OK, themoney is actually being spent on aworthy cause, or at least a causedriven by worthy motives. The prob-lem is that a combination of misun-derstanding, ignorance and theseemingly intentional peddling ofexaggerations and myths is morelikely than not to result in moneybeing wasted.

(Some of the public expenditureis here in Australia. A recent reporton Australian hydrogen activitylists around 120 projects, mostly inthe public sector. While the costsare not given, the total public com-mitment here must be in the tens ofmillions of dollars.)

There is private money too. Manycompanies are being built with pri-vate investment based on the at-tractions of hydrogen and fuel cells.If those attractions are imaginary,then those funds are at risk andeventually the private investors

may well lose.But there is something deeper at

stake here than money and the

Hydrogen Economy


5/5


truth. If the public and governmentbelieve that our environment willeventually be saved by the hydrogeneconomy, there is a risk of becomingcomplacent about the real threats of

the future, with serious conse-quences.

If, as I believe the case is strong,there is not going to be a technicalfix (nuclear power being a possibleexception) for our future energywoes, then our whole thinking hasto change. Our generation, and sev-eral before us, inherited and pro-ceeded to consume a fossil fuel bo-nanza, which drove huge economicgrowth. Our descendents wont have

it so easy. Energy will becomescarcer and more expensive. Cli-mate change concerns may wellincrease the costs further. Thechances are that our economies,which depend heavily on energy(GDP and energy consumption areclosely related), will shrink.

While many of us might approve,even welcome, simpler lifestyles anda retreat from consumerism, theresa serious problem. In our econo-

mies, even a tiny shrinkage of onlya fraction of a per cent, has, histori-cally, wreaked havoc on employmentand wellbeing. Recession and de-pression have always hit a smallminority disproportionately andcaused major social disruption. Thisis the number one problem of theshrinking economy, not the limit togrowth in itself.

If I am right, the big challenge isto accept the inevitability of energyshortages and rising energy prices

and adapt our economic system soas to absorb the effects of the result-ing shrinking economy and spreadthose effects equitably.

Hydrogen is a distraction, and anexpensive one. So it does matter.

At last, we have uncovered Austral-

ias Best Psychic! In the end it wasnt

at all hard we Google searched

(GS), read lots of womens magazines

(WM) and watching tabloid TV (TT).

However, we found that we were far

too successful with many people

claiming, directly and indirectly, the

same title.

Its nice to know all these superla-

tive operators are in the market, buthow is the poor consumer to deter-

mine who among them is worth the

money?

The following list is incomplete

we are sure there are many others

making similar claims. If you find

any, please let us know.

[Thanks to Dr Tracy Reynolds for

this idea.]

Daniel: Australias leading psy-

chic medium. TT Amanda De Warren: Australias

foremost psychic medium. TT

Bridget: is known as Australias

best loved psychic. GS

Garry Wiseman: Australias lead-

ing psychic all-rounder. GS

Michael Wheeler: Australias most

accurate psychic. GS

Michael Wheeler: Australias lead-

ing psychic medium. GS Tahillia: The best, most accurate

psychic in the world! TT

Scott Russell Hill: The worlds

most accurate psychic. WM, TT

Scott Russell Hill Australias most

accurate psychic. WM

Scott Russell Hill: Australias

leading authority on the paranormal.

TT

Scott Russell Hill: Australia

smost renowned psychic. WM

Jacquelene Close Moore: Austral-

ias leading psychic. GS

Gabrielle: acknowledged as Aus-

tralias most incredible clairvoyant.

GS

Rhondda Stewart-Garfield: Aus-

tralias leading psychic. GS

Mitchell Coombes: Australias lead-

ing psychic witch! GS

Milton Black: Australias most

respected astrologer. GS

Milton Black: Australias leading

psychic. TT

Milton Black: Australias leading

Astrologer. TT

Alison Moroney: Australias most

renowned Astrologist. GS

Pia Shannon Forbes: Australias

best astrologer. GS

Judith Collins: Recognised as

Australias leading authority on the

human aura. GS

Margaret Dent (now deceased):

Australias most gifted medium. GS

Margaret Dent: Australias most

renowned psychic. GS

Margaret Dent: Australias most

renowned psychic. GS

Kerry Kulkens (now deceased):

Australias most famous psychic. GS

Kerry Kulkens: Australias most

respected psychic. GS

Kerry Kulkens: Australias leading

psychic astrologer. GS

Athena Starwoman (now de-

ceased): Australias most famous

astrologer. TT, GS

Athena Starwoman: Australias

most popular astrologer. GS

Fiona McCallum (now deceased):

Australias favourite and most accu-

rate clairvoyant. GS

Richard Saunders

Report

3 hydrogen

Documents