DANGEROUS & Misguided efforts in the fight against climate change

[rgranger]

Hello Jim and John: I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum for this post so if you think it should be moved to the "off topic" forum, please do so (and appologies in advance).

Last week, I was casually listening to the April 29th broadcast of Science Friday. Part of that show featured an interview with Joan Ogden who is a professor of Environmental Science and founding Director of the Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways (STEPS) Program at the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis. In that interview, Dr. Ogden promoted the use of hydrogen fuel cells to power cars and commented that the hydrogen used in these cells often comes from natural gas but in the future most of it will come from wind and solar. What Dr. Ogden did not mention is the fact that electricity from wind and solar is used to hydrolyze water to make hydrogen gas.

That is right! The hydrogen gas used to power fuel cells will come from WATER!

Lets do some math using recent data...

A car using a fuel cell to generate electricity will “burn” about 1.6 kilograms of H2 for every 100 miles traveled[1]. In units of water, that is 28.8 liters of water for every 100 miles. In 2019, Americans drove 3.2 trillion miles[2]. If we put that into equivalent units of water used to make hydrogen gas, then we would have had to have hydrolyzed ~92 trillion liters of water in 2019 if we had powered those cars with fuel cells.

Here is an important fact. The Earth’s atmosphere does not have an appreciable amount of hydrogen gas because hydrogen gas is too light for gravity to hold it.

So, what would happen if we accidently spilled 10% of 92 trillion liters of hydrogen gas annually? The Earth could lose ~9.2 trillion liters of water each year. … just from American drivers (For those who don’t think in liters, that is approximately 2.4 trillion gallons). If we globalized fuel cells for all drivers and we also used fuel cells to power homes and industry, we can imagine the Earth losing upwards of a hundred trillion gallons of water each year. To help you wrap your head around 100 trillion gallons, Lake Erie is approximately 130 trillion gallons.

It is my opinion that the promotion of hydrogen fuel cells is a dangerous proposition. Global warming is some thing we can reverse with technology and social changes. Global dehydration is not something we can reverse. If you understand the significance of this analysis, please consider sharing this post.

[1] Fuel Cell.
[2] Average miles driven per year by Americans.

 

[Davidasailor26]

But doesn’t the reaction inside the fuel cell basically just reverse what was done to generate the hydrogen? It’s my understanding that the cell essentially recombines hydrogen and oxygen, producing water. Isn’t that a zero sum game, from a water standpoint? Presumably the source water would be from some reservoir, hopefully in a water-rich region. The product water would be released into the atmosphere, eventually re-condensing.

 

[JamesG161]

The product water would be released into the atmosphere, eventually re-condensing.

Yes.

The point is Driving a Car with a Compressed Hydrogen Tank [Fuel Cells] versus Lithium Batteries.

Wind and Solar panels = Solar Energy
Hydrocarbons or BioFuels = Stored Past Solar Energy
Gravity driven Hydroelectric = Solar Energy


Only 2 things that are not Solar Driven Energy
1) Geothermal Energy
2) Nuclear
_____

John and I both discussed this Topic Potential "Climate Change".

We invite people to discuss Climate and the effects on our Solar Powered Sailboats.

In fact, I was preparing the Climate Changing forecast for the Hurricane Season 2022.

As long as it does not become Political or Religious, we agreed this a good spot for...

Climate and Weather changes.
_____

Jim and John

PS: As of now, there is no major industry recovering Lithium from old batteries. But at least Hydrogen is recoverable.

 

[dlochner]

But doesn’t the reaction inside the fuel cell basically just reverse what was done to generate the hydrogen? It’s my understanding that the cell essentially recombines hydrogen and oxygen, producing water. Isn’t that a zero sum game, from a water standpoint? Presumably the source water would be from some reservoir, hopefully in a water-rich region. The product water would be released into the atmosphere, eventually re-condensing.

The assumption is no loss of hydrogen before being used in the car. However, we all know that along the way there will be small losses, the cumulative effect will be significant. Think of the gas that escapes from the stove as you light it, or from the propane tank as you attach it to the grill, and when was the last time you did not spill a single drop of gas while filling the car?

@rgranger's 10% loss might be high, however even a 5% loss would be significant overtime. There are other sources of hydrogen, most if not all organic compounds have it, however, it is more difficult to remove it from those compounds.

 

[smokey73]

I believe @rgranger is referring to the 10% "lost hydrogen" that escapes, presumably during fueling, transportation, transfer as well as migration of the hydrogen through the holding system (H2 is very hard to contain 100%). I don't think he was using the hydrogen that is combined with the oxygen in the power production cycle producing water for the example given. I don't know if that 10% number is realistic (could be low or high).

I encourage you all to do your own research, but massive use of hydrogen is not without its own risks and environmental consequences. Some hydrogen is naturally recombined into water in the upper atmosphere where it is considered an "indirect" greenhouse gas. Massive production and use of hydrogen might not be the panacea that it would first appear to be. I'm not bashing fuel cells, just cautioning people to look at it from the broader perspective of the total picture from the massive electrical power needed to create the H2 by electrolysis on such a large scale, safety risks in storage and handling, water resource depletion, release potential impact, etc.

 

[JamesG161]

I live 15 miles from NASA Stennis Space Center.

I have seen how they store Compressed Hydrogen.

Since all Tanks must have a Rupture Disc Protection, they have a "Pilot light" burning near that Disc.

Since a full tank, is heated by Solar Energy, they have to vent it to Control Internal Pressures.

Hydrogen Burns with a colorless Flame.
_____
The Apollo flights to the Moon, all ran on Fuel Cells.

Apollo 13 lost the Oxygen component to their fuel Cells.
Jim...

PS: @rgranger is correct about the losses of Hydrogen.

 

[Davidasailor26]

Sorry, I missed the part about losses to spillage. That does make for a more interesting discussion. Some googling suggests the losses to leakage in natural gas production and storage are on the order of 2%. I guess if Hydrogen is harder to contain the losses could be more, bringing it to a significant level.

 

[rgranger]

The assumption is no loss of hydrogen before being used in the car. However, we all know that along the way there will be small losses, the cumulative effect will be significant. Think of the gas that escapes from the stove as you light it, or from the propane tank as you attach it to the grill, and when was the last time you did not spill a single drop of gas while filling the car?

@rgranger's 10% loss might be high, however even a 5% loss would be significant overtime. There are other sources of hydrogen, most if not all organic compounds have it, however, it is more difficult to remove it from those compounds.

That is exactly my point! I don't trust a world full of Bubbas to be careful with that hydrogen gas. And for every molecule of hydrogen gas that escapes the Earth's atmosphere, we lose a water molecule. The vast bulk of the world's hydrogen is sequestered as water vapor and petroleum. When we burn petroleum, we produce CO2 (bad) and water. When we spill a little petroleum product into the environment, that causes problems but the atoms don't leave the Earth. If we start spilling H2 into the environment, we are essentially dehydrating the plannet.

 

[rgranger]

@rgranger's 10% loss might be high, however even a 5% loss would be significant overtime. There are other sources of hydrogen, most if not all organic compounds have it, however, it is more difficult to remove it from those compounds.

I'll admit that I chose 10% to create a dramatic outcome but even if the loss was 0.1% we would lose Lake Erie in 100 years. THAT is still an unacceptable outcome.

 

[walt]

I think an assumption was made in the original post (If I am interpreting correctly) that any hydrogen that is leaked will escape the planet and be lost. But.. isnt hydrogen very reactive so this assumption may not be true?

FYI, Cal Tech apparently studied this issue back in 2003 Hydrogen economy might impactEarth's stratosphere, study shows

There is no mention of Hydrogen escaping the planet but they do bring up some concern with the ozone layer.

Because molecular hydrogen freely moves up and mixes with stratospheric air, the result would be the creation of additional water at high altitudes and, consequently, an increased dampening of the stratosphere. This in turn would result in cooling of the lower stratosphere and disturbance of ozone chemistry, which depends on a chain of chemical reactions involving hydrochloric acid and chlorine nitrate on water ice.

In this respect, hydrogen would be similar to the chlorofluorocarbons (once the standard substance used for air conditioning and refrigeration), which were intended to be contained within their devices, but which in practice leaked into the atmosphere and attacked the stratospheric ozone layer.

FYI, I saw this reaction equation.. dont know if its accurate or not

It (hydrogen) reacts with ozone by H2 + O3 → H2O + O2

 

[smokey73]

The Cal Tech article is interesting and confirms the recombination of H2 with O2 in the atmosphere and its potential consequences, but it does not mention or exclude the escape of H2 from the uppermost parts of atmosphere. I have read in other articles that the same energetics that explain its recombination with oxygen also create a distribution of energetic motion (brownian motion) where the velocity of some percentage of the H2 atoms may be sufficient to exceed escape velocity and even without that, the solar winds can strip the lighter elements from the uppermost regions of the atmosphere. Throw in the energy needed to "split the water molecule" and it may be a non-starter. Of course, we could build nuclear plants to generate the energy with sufficient energy density to power the electrolysis but that is another story.

Simply put, it is not a straightforward "great idea" just as an all electric vehicle based transportation system has its drawbacks. Balance people, balance.

 

[rgranger]

H2 + O3 → H2O + O2

Yes, that reaction is correct. It is important to understand that 50% of the earths total atmosphere is contained in the lower 3.1 miles of air and that number reaches 80% at about 6.2 miles. See graphic attached.

I am not an expert on atmospheric chemistry. But I do understand molecular kinetics, equlibrium and how they effect reaction rates. There exists an equilibrium between "outer space" hydrogen and hydrogen contained within our atmosphere (however you choose to define atmosphere). But if we dramatically change the concentration of hydrogen in the troposphere, that equilibrium will change. Now that you have pointed me to this ozone studey with hydrogen gas, I am even more concerned that a hydrogen economy will result in the extinction of most life on this planet.

 

[JamesG161]

I am even more concerned that a hydrogen economy will result in the extinction of most life on this planet.

Conclusion = Avoid Fuel Cells, exception = Space Travel

I want to sail on Water, not mud, Sand or Rubble like Earth Without Water.

.

Jim...

 

[David in Sandusky]

The original assumption that all automotive travel will use fuel cells is an error. Most automotive power will be from batteries. Hydrogen fuels cells will be most useful for long hauls where rapid, roadside charging is impractical.

The point that we need to consider the long term impact of outgassing leaked hydrogen from earth as part of any large deployment of fuel cells is valid. But like all modeling of earthwide systems, it will take more data and understanding than we can muster. Transitioning to a minimum carbon economy will require a lot of this kind of science and engineering over the coming decades.

 

[rgranger]

Transitioning to a minimum carbon economy will require a lot of this kind of science and engineering over the coming decades.

Agreed. Something that has frustrated me in the past decade is the absence of a discussion on using technology to cool the earth. It seems that we could "buy" ourselves a few more years to figure this all out if we employed some simple (and inexpensive) changes to how we do things. We used to hear a lot of talk about it in the news cycle but lately it is all about petroleum use reduction. Don't get me wrong, I think we should not be burning hydrocarbons when there are other (better) ways to make energy... for starters we need the hydrocarbons for so many of the materials we use in our economy so burning this valuable feedstock is foolish.

What happended to discussions of...

1. Zonning reform?
   • Why do we still use black shingles on our houses instead of white?
     

     • Why don't we have solar panel shingles?​
   • Why don't we require a minimum amount of lawn be covered with shade trees?​
   • Why do we still mow the medium on our highways instead of planting shade cover?​
   • Why don't we use more geothermal heating and cooling in areas where the water shed is there?​
   • Why don't we require new subdivisions to have retaining ponds?​
   • Why don't we build parking lots with pavers so water will not run off but instead will trickle back into the ground?​
   • Etc.​
2. Agriculture reform. (This could be another long list).
3. Seeding the stratosphere with particulates to reflect some of the sun's light.
4. Did you know that only 2% of U.S. damns are hydro-electric. A simple cork-screw turbine in the discharge tube of existing damns could add A LOT of electricity to the grid without any added environmental impact (i.e. the damage has already been done by the existing damn- might as well exploit the potential energy of the discharge).
   • On the subject of energy storage and damns... one of the best ways to store excess power during low energy consumption is to use the excess electricity to pump water from a lower lake up to a higher elevation lake (90% efficiency). This is exactly what Smith Mountain Lake does ...​

I fear the politicians and news reporters have gotten to fixated on reducing hydrocarbon use and have taken their collective eyes off of all of the other tools we NEED to be employing. And the frustrating thing is that if we employed all of these other tools, we would (by default) reduce hydrocarbon consumption.

 

[JamesG161]

To divert this discussion back to Weather and Forecasting...
_____
There are two places in our Oceans that Produce 85% of the world's Oxygen.

Thus our Solar Energy is working with Kelp making O2 and consuming CO2.

The two huge Kelp spots are off Brazil and East Africa.
Jim...

PS: Do not forget the other sea life's use of CO2 to make their shells.

 

[dmax]

Along with encouraging natural methods of reducing carbon dioxide, there are several projects to actively remove it from the atmosphere: These companies are sucking carbon out of the atmosphere — and investors are piling in