Mixed messages and looking ahead...

Governments in democracies have a tough job.  They have to balance priorities - which leads to them taking actions that are frankly illogical.  If they do things that are unpopular they don't get voted back in.

If one believes man-made global warming is a serious threat - and the warnings of those doing the science should be taken seriously - as the British government at least professes to - then surely one should be taking rapid and urgent action.  That would mean educating the population and above all legislating to force us to stop burning fossil fuels without at least capturing all the carbon.  This would mean dramatically reducing private car use as well as building large amounts of renewable energy generation and almost certainly a number of nuclear power stations to bridge the gap.  In the absence of that we would have to reduce the amount of energy we're consuming for both domestic and industrial purposes.  These are likely to unpopular moves until the large majority of citizens are convinced of an impending crisis - by which point it will probably be too late.  Even then, they will be unlikely to vote for such measures unless the rest of the industrialised world follows suit or leads the way.

This is a classic prisoner's dilemma - if the UK acts in isolation then our economic prosperity will suffer - and our overall effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be negligible.  This is the justification for the Kyoto agreement - but if the biggest CO2 producers - in particular the USA - don't sign up, then nothing will happen.  Countries in the west (or anywhere else for that matter) don't have a great record on altruism.  There is also a great deal of distrust - how do you make sure that everyone is playing by the rules?

The car scrappage scheme is an example of just how illogical things can get.  Ideally we want to reduce the number of fossil fuel burning cars on the road to reduce CO2 emissions, pollution and congestion - but the economic prosperity of the country is suffering in a deep recession - so the government wants to stimulate economic activity in an area that has been hit hard.  They also need the vehicle duty paid on the 30 million vehicles in the country in order to balance their budgets.  Their response is to introduce a scrappage scheme whereby one can trade in one's vehicle, providing it's more than 10 years old, to get a discount on a new car. The argument is that newer cars produce less CO2 than old ones.  That might be true depending on what one trades in compared to what one buys to replace it - but the difference is pretty small in the overall scheme of things.  If one was forced to buy an electric or even a hybrid vehicle then the argument might be valid - but that's not required.  This is just one example - there are plenty of others where government policies conflict.

Looking ahead to when the oil price becomes ridiculously high and we don't have enough bio-fuels to replace it, one can foresee a shift in economic activity.  As the cost of transporting goods and people by ship and plane becomes too high, globalisation will be replaced by localisation.  Electronic communications links and the internet will stay in place, but countries will regenerate their manufacturing and agricultural industries to bring the supply of goods closer to the consumers.  Whether we will be able to generate enough electricity from renewable sources to provide for this industrial need is another question!

Hydrogen - Economically Unviable?

I have been reading a book that I referred to in an earlier post called "The Hype About Hydrogen" by Joseph Romm.he examines the case for switching to hydrogen as the energy carrier for the future.  Romm worked in the US Department of Energy between 1993 and 1998.  From mid 1995 he held the number 2 spot in the office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.  He is well qualified to explain the facts and issues surrounding a potential future hydrogen economy - and there are many.  The book is heavily focused on the US, although he does look at Iceland as a place where a hydrogen economy may be viable, primarily because they have excess geo-thermal energy that can be used for the generation of hydrogen.

Romm is convinced that man-made global warming is a real threat.  He is equally convinced that there will not be a viable hydrogen based economy for some decades.  There are many technical and economic problems to be overcome, which makes current US policy look distinctly flawed.

He primarily investigates the issues surrounding fuel cells.  These are devices that take hydrogen in one end (or a substance from which hydrogen can be released), air (providing oxygen) in the other and generate electricity and water.  On the face of it clean energy.

Fuel cells are not a new idea - they've been around since the 19th century, but they've never made it into mainstream production, primarily because of the cost and technical issues associated with them.

There are different types of fuel cell - some operate at low temperature, but require to be fed from an external source of hydrogen.  These tend to be expensive because they need platinum catalysts.  Others operate at high temperature.  They can form their own hydrogen from sources such as natural gas - but they take a while to get up to temperature.

There are all sorts of challenges to overcome if a hydrogen based economy is going to be viable.  Generation of hydrogen - if the goal is to get off fossil fuels because of the related greenhouse gas emissions, then the CO2 released as a by-product from reforming natural gas needs to be captured and sequestered.  If the electrolysis of water is to be used as a source then we need a lot more electrical energy than we currently produce.  Another problem is transportation.  The energy density of hydrogen per litre is only a third that of petrol - so moving it around using hydrogen is not very efficient.  It takes up a lot more space than the equivalent energy volume so requires bigger tanks.  It damages pipes that are used to carry it.  Being a very small molecule it leaks.  There are other health and safety issues that need resolved - for example if it does catch fire it burns with a clear flame making it impossible to see.

Stationary high temperature fuel cells seem to be a potentially viable option for buildings - but the energy and potential CO2 emissions required to generate the hydrogen need to be taken into consideration.  If not using renewable energy sources - which are currently in relatively short supply - then fuel cells are generally not more efficient than burning the natural gas in a power station - and a lot more expensive to make.

The bottom line is that there is no set of easy solutions to these problems.  Much more research and investment is needed to overcome them.  In the meantime, plug in hybrid vehicles and other forms of renewable energy being developed in Europe and elsewhere will rule the roost for some years to come.  Romm's plea is for the US government to change its policy and invest more in other forms of energy generation.  He doesn't advocate abandoning hydrogen - but suggests it should be seen as a longer term option.

This is an informative book.  It presents the numbers and the sources of information used.  It's not the easiest of reads - but I'd recommend it for those wanting to be better informed about the subject.