Re: Lomborg, part 4: water vapour and hydrogen economy

Temper, temper.

I presented published data.  Draw what conclusions you will.  Today, 96
percent of all hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels (I would call the
process chemical reduction rather than electrolysis, but both are the
transfer of electrons to the hydrocarbon to reduce the molecule and
release hydrogen).

There is nothing circular about the logic.  

What other changes, either technologically, politically, or both, need
to occur for hydrogen to be produced primarily from electrolysis of
water.

Take a look at the chemical thermodynamics.  How many joules of energy
are required to produce a mole of hydrogen from methane?  How many
joules of energy are required to produe a mole of hydrogen from water?
Look up the Gibbs free energy of reaction for the half reactions and do
the math.

It is a theoretical approach, but it provides some insight into the
energetics associated wth these two sources of hydrogen.

Then, assume that a gas-fired powerplant in an urban area wishes to
change from steam turbines to fuel-cell generated electricity.  Ignore
the capital costs associated with the equipment change out.  Look only
at the energy balance.  Assume that they have a source of water and
natural gas at the power plant (most do).  They can produce hydrogen for
the fuel cells from the natural gas or from the water.  Assume the
capital costs for either equipment is equivalent.  From a pure energy
balance equation: how much energy can they produce from a mole of
hydrogen in the fuel cell?  How much energy will they need to produce a
mole of hydrogen from natural gas?  From water?  

Good luck.

_____________________
Richard Haimann, P.E.
The Lee Andrews Group
(213) 539-2965, x122 (no vmail)
(310) 408-2537 cell (vmail)
(562) 684-4312 e-fax
rhaimann@leeandrewsgroup.com
richard@haimann.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ecol-econ-owner@csf.colorado.edu 
> [mailto:ecol-econ-owner@csf.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Adam Gottschalk
> Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 7:50 AM
> To: Ecol Econ
> Subject: Re: Lomborg, part 4: water vapour and hydrogen economy
> 
> 
> 
> > If the future hydrogen energy economy relies on the least expensive 
> > sources of hydrogen (as economic behavior tends to suggest),
> 
> "Economic behavior" does not suggest this. Your so-called 
> economic behavior leads people to choose options that 
> translate into the least number of dollars. This can and does 
> have little to do with what is or isn't actually the least 
> costly. You might say this is equivocation on words like 
> "cost" and "expense", and furthermore that this point seems 
> to be the only point of concern to me.
> 
> Even if you consider these points to be largely semantic 
> (which they aren't), still they couldn't be more important. 
> None of the discussion of the costs of hydrogen production 
> are meaningful when there is such massive market failure that 
> by and large we haven't a clue as to the full social costs. Thus,
> 
> > The cost (in energy) of producing hydrogen through electrolysis of 
> > water is significantly higher than the costs of extracting fossil 
> > fuels
> 
> couldn't be more misleading. You are implying that the market 
> reflects the full social costs of of extracting, 
> distributing, and utilizing fossil fuels. That's simply ludicrous.
> 
> Further, you're using circular logic. You say,
> 
> > With advancements in
> > photoelectrolysis, perhaps using solar energy to produce 
> hydrogen, we 
> > may see a shift.
> 
> which means that when you assert that electrolysis of water 
> is more costly than extracting fossil fuels, you're ignoring 
> the fact that this is because what we've got is fossil-fuel 
> based electrolysis at the moment. That extracting fossil 
> fuels AND using them to power electrolysis is more expensive 
> than simply extracting fossil fuels alone is as rudimentary 
> as the multiplication tables.
> 
> My point, again, is that it does little to no good, and 
> probably does a fair amount of damage, to ignore market 
> failure as a fact of life, and to go on talking about costs 
> as if the ones we can gauge today in the main are valid.
>