|
January
20, 2005
Mr.
Stephen B. Shepard
Editor-in-Chief
BusinessWeek
Dear
Sir:
In
order to keep up with issues and events of interest to business people,
I have been a BusinessWeek reader for over 30 years. Most of your
magazine's articles have been informative, interesting and reasonably
accurate. My only complaint is that from time to time, BusinessWeek has
failed to maintain a policy of consistent editorial quality control. Two
or more articles in the same issue, or in subsequent issues, reveal
conflicting information and opinion. It is as though BusinessWeek wants
to take all sides of a subject. The reader is left to figure out the
truth.
Lately,
however, BusinessWeek has apparently succumbed to siren of lazy
journalism. Articles reflect a lemming like adulation of pop culture and
politically correct thinking. Truth is fashioned from opinion rather
than fact.
Such
is the case with your unfortunate infomercial on hydrogen (Science and
Technology, Hydrogen Cars Are Almost Here, But There are still serious
problems to solve, such as: Where will drivers fuel up? BusinessWeek,
January 24, 2005 pp. 56). This article reflects the contemporary pop
culture mantra that pollution free hydrogen fuels will save the
environment, a belief that ignores the pollution penalty of hydrogen
production, distribution and consumption. It also obscures hydrogen's
primary disadvantage: hydrogen is an energy intensive alternative to
motor fuels derived from oil.
Here
is why.
Fire
and Explosion
Your
article claims that hydrogen is less dangerous than gasoline. In a
limited sense, this is true.
Like
gasoline and diesel fuel, hydrogen is highly volatile. Because of its
very low boiling point (-252.77 degrees C.), and low density (.0899
grams/liter), it will dissipate very rapidly in an upward direction if
released as a gas into the atmosphere or spilled as a liquid onto the
ground. This very high rate of upward dissipation compares favorably
with the slow dispersal rate of gasoline vapors which tend to fall and
collect near the ground. Furthermore, gasoline can ignite at a
concentration of 1 percent. By contrast, hydrogen needs a concentration
level of roughly 4 percent before it will ignite. Since
it has such a high dispersion coefficient, hydrogen dissipates rapidly
and it is thus almost impossible for a hydrogen explosion to occur in an
open area. It is also true that a hydrogen fire will burn out faster
than a petroleum fire. These factors appear to make hydrogen
safer than gasoline or diesel fuel as a source of explosion and fire.
But
that does not mean, as your article implies, that hydrogen is not a
potential source of explosion and fire. According to published Material
Safety Data Sheets, it has other characteristics that make it dangerous.
-
Although
the flame will usually burn out very quickly and dissipate little
radiant heat, hydrogen ignites over a wide range of concentrations
(from 4 to 74.2 percent).
-
A
potential explosion hazard exists from reignition if a hydrogen fire
is put out without shutting off the hydrogen source.
-
Hydrogen
becomes explosively dangerous if it accumulates in the upper spaces
of a structure.
-
In
bright ambient light, the pale blue flames are invisible to the
naked eye. People have been burned by hydrogen fires before they
were even aware they had walked into an open flame.
-
It
takes relatively little heat energy to ignite hydrogen. For example,
when hydrogen is released from a pressurized container, rapid
gaseous expansion causes an increase in temperature due to its
negative Joule-Thompson coefficient and the heat thus generated may
cause spontaneous ignition.
-
Hydrogen
is easier to detonate if it is in a confined space, such as a
tunnel, garage or the interior of a car. Care must be taken to
eliminate sources of ignition, such as sparks from electrical
equipment or static electricity, open flames, and extremely hot
objects.
One
final point on hydrogen's potential fire and explosion potential.
Hydrogen is highly reactive with other elements and may combine with
them to form new chemicals that are corrosive or explosive.
Other
Hazards
Although
hydrogen is odorless and nontoxic, it is classified as a simple
asphyxiant. In an enclosed space, such as the cabin of a vehicle or your
garage, symptoms of anoxia can occur when gas concentrations are within
the flammable (and potentially explosive) range. Suffocation occurs
because increased concentrations of hydrogen dilute the available supply
of oxygen in the air to levels below those necessary to support life. To
prevent explosions and suffocation, industrial systems typically employ
sensors which trigger venting procedures before hydrogen reaches a
concentration of 4 percent. If we plan to use hydrogen as a motor fuel,
we will need to devise similar systems for use in garages and tunnels,
and we will expect vehicle manufacturers, such as BMW, to automatically
vent our cars and trucks in the event of a hydrogen leak.
And
last – but not least – all consumers will have to be warned that
skin contact with cryogenic hydrogen liquid or its vapors can cause
burns and tissue damage.
Fuel
Cells
Has
anyone developed a reliable, practical and affordable fuel cell for
automotive applications? Is it possible to develop a fuel cell that will
last the expected life of the vehicle? How will we distribute, install,
maintain, collect and recycle the exotic and sometimes highly corrosive
chemicals used to sustain fuel cell reactions?
Until
there are suitable answers to these questions, automotive fuel cells
are, and will remain, interesting laboratory experiments. As a service
to your readers, BusinessWeek's editorial evaluation should reflect this
reality.
Hydrogen
and the Environment
Before
we waltz all starry eyed into a hydrogen economy, we need to answer some
very tough questions. Remember the Periodic Table that your science
teacher showed you in High School? Where is hydrogen on that table and
why is it there?
The
short answer. Hydrogen is a very reactive element. It will readily
combine with any other element or chemical it contacts in the
environment that has a suitable electron structure. Because it is
lighter than air, hydrogen always dissipates upward.
In
our existing world, we use tons of liquid hydrogen and millions of cubic
feet of hydrogen gas every year. But most of these applications are for
industrial use. In theory, hydrogen is used under carefully controlled
conditions using specified procedures by trained personnel. Now we
propose to make hydrogen a widely distributed fuel for mobile and
stationary applications. Who will use this fuel? Millions of people with
little or no training or real concern for the commodity they are
handling. Leaks are inevitable. Accidental release will be a fact of life.
As
this highly reactive gas ascends upward into the atmosphere, it will
combine with oxygen and form water droplets. Will this contribute to
global warming? Or cooling? And will hydrogen reach the ozone layer? If
so, do we humans run the risk of destroying the ozone layer with our
hydrogen energy solution?
The
average composition of the low atmosphere (up to 15 kms) includes:
nitrogen, oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, nitric oxide,
hydrogen, nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, and water vapor. The ozone
layer or ozonosphere is generally the region in the upper atmosphere
between 15-40 kms. The ozone layer contains nitrogen, oxygen, argon,
hydrogen, hydroxyl and methyl radicals, hydrogen peroxide, and water
vapor. There are continual photochemical reactions in the stratosphere
because of the influx of short-wave radiation. Ozone is continually
created and destroyed in catalytic reactions with oxides of hydrogen,
nitrogen, and chlorine.
What
are the potential chemical reactions if excess hydrogen accumulates in
the atmosphere? The answer to this question is presently the subject of
scientific debate.
Hydrogen
as a Fuel.
We
have to remember that hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is merely a
carrier of energy.
Hydrogen
is a manufactured product. Your article glosses over and ignores a key
fact about the production of hydrogen.
It's
energy intensive.
Using
existing and proven technology, it takes substantially more energy to
make, compress, liquefy, store and distribute hydrogen than we can
expect to get from hydrogen. If electricity is used to make hydrogen by
electrolysis, and the hydrogen thus produced is used in an automobile
fuel cell, at least 45 percent of the original energy used to
manufacture the hydrogen will be wasted by the time it is consumed in a
fuel cell using best available technology. The net energy efficiency of
a vehicle which burns hydrogen as a fuel is substantially worse.
Where
will we get this energy?
Biomass
Your
article ignores the facts. Biomass collection, transportation,
processing and distribution yields little net energy and assumes the use
of gasoline or diesel fuel. As the reality of oil depletion becomes a
factor in public policy, the direct use of available oil resources for
energy consumption will take precedence over their indirect use to
produce another form of energy. The use of biomass for hydrogen
production is problematic because it is not, on a net energy basis, a
self sustaining process nor is there enough arable land on this planet
to grow the crops that would be necessary to support a biomass solution
to the emerging energy crisis.
Policy
Public
policy will eventually work to discourage the production of hydrogen
from oil, coal, solar, hydro, nuclear, or wind resources because in
every case, it is more efficient to use the available energy for
electricity or motor fuel than to waste it for the production of
hydrogen. All of the experimental production and distribution options
mentioned in your article assume the availability of cheap energy,
usually in the form of oil or natural gas. As time passes, that
assumption will prove increasingly false. A more realistic assessment of
production costs using available resources would have shown
substantially higher consumer prices than those quoted in your article.
So
let us review the our facts.
-
There
are safety and environmental questions that need to be resolved
before we embrace the hydrogen economy.
-
In
order for hydrogen to become an attractive carrier of energy, we
must develop a far less energy intensive manufacturing process.
-
No
one has developed a reliable, practical and affordable fuel cell and
unless someone has been able to change the laws of physics, burning
hydrogen as a motor fuel is improvident.
Should
We Give Up?
No.
Although there is evidence that proposed automotive hybrid technology
will be almost as efficient and environmentally friendly as a fleet of
hydrogen vehicles, we face an era of dwindling oil supplies. So hybrid
option only gives us a short term solution. The welfare of our children
and our grandchildren depends on our ability to develop a practical
alternative fuel for both mobile and stationary applications.
Since
oil and natural gas depletion are a reality that will impact our economy
and our culture over the next 25 years, energy production and
consumption has become a critical issue for every BusinessWeek reader.
However, before BusinessWeek publishes another article on hydrogen as a
fuel, I would encourage your editors to do their homework. A good place
to start is a report on The Hydrogen Economy by the National Academies
Press. The
project detailed in this report was approved by the Governing Board of
the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils
of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of
Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This report addressed the problem of how hydrogen might be
manufactured, distributed, stored, and dispensed for light-duty vehicles
in the transportation sector. To quote from this excellent report
"There are major hurdles on the path to achieving the vision of the
hydrogen economy; the path will not be simple or straightforward. Many
of the committee’s observations generalize across the entire hydrogen
economy: the hydrogen system must be cost-competitive, it must be safe
and appealing to the consumer, and it would preferably offer advantages
from the perspectives of energy security and CO2 emissions.
Specifically for the transportation sector, dramatic progress in the
development of fuel cells, storage devices, and distribution systems is
especially critical. Widespread success is not certain."
The
analysis is reasonably optimistic: "at a future, mature stage of
development, hydrogen (H2) can be produced and used in fuel
cell vehicles at reasonable cost." However, "The challenge,
with today’s industrial hydrogen as well as tomorrow’s hydrogen, is
the high cost of distributing H2 to dispersed locations. …
The committee believes that the required (manufacturing) cost reductions
can be achieved only by targeted fundamental and exploratory research on
hydrogen production by photo biological, photochemical, and thin-film
solar processes."
Furthermore,
the authors of this report envision a 50 year conversion cycle from
petroleum to hydrogen. That's too bad. If it takes that long, our
economy and our cultural fabric will be decimated by shortages of oil
and natural gas.
Until
we have demonstrated that we can turn interesting laboratory experiments
into practical solutions, the hydrogen economy is a theory that needs
more work. In the meantime, pop culture journalism has no place in a
magazine that targets business readers around the world. Leave
ideological rumination to The Los Angeles Times, CNN or The New Yorker.
BusinessWeek readers have a right to expect fact based journalism.
©
2005 Ronald R. Cooke
The Cultural
Economist
Author, "Oil, Jihad &
Destiny" and "Detensive Nation"
Editorial Archive
CONTACT
INFORMATION
Ronald R. Cooke | 13365 Via Del Sol,
Auburn, CA 95602 | Website
|
