DLP- ChevronTexaco has now become the only major company in the US with
a serious effort to make hydrogen available [from methane] as a fuel.
We bought this capability from Texaco. The US government and the
military are already significant customers.
DW- Environmentalists and some politicians claim that making hydrogen
from methane only worsens "CO2 pollution," so we should be getting it by
electrolysis from seawater instead.
DLP- Well, as you know, that's definitely a losing proposition that uses
more energy than it makes available. Now, Iceland has practically
infinite reserves of geothermal energy, so it makes sense for them to
get hydrogen from water. But not for the rest of us.
DW- How about producing hydrogen in Iceland for the rest of the world?
DLP- A big problem with hydrogen is that it's not cost-effective to
transport it. To liquefy or even compress it requires a significant
fraction of the energy it contains. Ultimately we'll probably go to
some solid form.
DW- You don't mean freezing it?!
DLP- No! I mean chemically bonding it with solids, such as adsorption
on carbon [?]. [I didn't understand what he said on this. But I added,
"Something like gas hydrates?" And he replied, "Yes."]
Hydrogen economy
One of the interesting things that I have noticed about the oil/gas
depletion discussion is that the oil/gas industry tends to paint a rosy
picture of the fossil fuel situation while environmentalists tend to
paint a rosy picture of alternative fuels. Neither group seems to be
much concerned about how much longer economical supplies of oil and gas
will be available. Politicians tend to take the best of both worlds and
tell their constituents all is well,one way or the other-either oil and
gas will be plentiful or alternative fuels will take over with little
disruption. Whereas much of the hardcore scientific community has
concerns about both the fossil fuel and alternative fuel situation,
concluding that we are in for some tough times in the near future..
Glenn has already responded to the oil and gas part of the discussion
with your friend, the ChevronTexaco executive. He knows a lot more
about that than I do, and what he says agrees with most of what I have
read.
Let me convey a bit of information I have come across about the hydrogen
situation. There is a well crafted paper about the hydrogen economy at
http://www.dotynmr.com/EnergyFuture1.pdf
It is the most thorough and detailed report about hydrogen that I have
read. It seems like a respectable paper to me.
David Doty basically claims that he does not see a significant shift to
a hydrogen economy soon, if ever. He writes that although fuel cells
have been around for 40 years, their cost has not decreased as much as
would be expected if new technologies were successful. There is a
further question of the purity of the hydrogen gas (LH2) that will be
required to have a fuel cell last long enough to be economical. Amory
Lovins, a environmental advocate of the hydrogen economy, seems to
think 98.5% pure hydrogen will suffice, but Doty thinks it may require
99.999% purity--obviously affecting the price of the LH2 to the
consumer. There is also a question of safety as well. How safe is a
cannister of LH2 in an accident, what sort of containment is required
and at what cost. Doty claims that we are nowhere near designing an
economical container for an automobile that will meet accepatable safety
standards. In addition we have no good economical source of hydrogen gas
at present, especially methane does not seem a viable source thse days.
Doty thinks that biodiesel is likely to be a more practical than
hydrogen at any time in the near future.
Al
Received on Sat Dec 6 12:06:17 2003
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 06 2003 - 12:06:18 EST