One of our interests is energy policy in general, including practical policy options for reducing carbon loading. This leads to a number of related issues: renewable energy, nuclear energy, the economics of carbon target policies (e.g., Kyoto) and energy efficiency (from generation to transmission to buildings to transport).
A useful study, [Carrying the Energy Future: Comparing Hydrogen and Electricity for Transmission, Storage and Transportation] [1] was developed by The Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment (ILEA). This is a Seattle environmental advocacy NGO.
It is a “Selected Citation” at the US Dept of Energy/Clean Cities Program. Hopefully that means that the science is sound – I judge the analysis to be internally consistent, but I’ve *not* checked their math, nor references.
[1]: http://www.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/progs/afdc/vwbs2.cgi?8631
The report is useful for two reasons:
1. For its negative conclusions, particularly regarding the “hydrogen economy” as applied to transportation. I.e., the idea that the solution to the atmospheric carbon loading by transport is the hydrogen-powered FCV (fuel cell vehicle). The study finds this concept of the hydrogen economy to be one of the least efficient options.
2. As a general information reference on the energy economy, electrical generation, transmission and consumption.
The backbone of the study is thermodynamics – i.e., energy efficiency analysis. The problem with the FCV scenario is not that fuel cells are inefficient. It is the assumption that the energy source should be hydrogen – which involves multiplicative efficiency losses. Note that fuel cells can be powered by a number of other fuels, such as natural gas. So if instead of converting natural gas to hydrogen, then transporting the hydrogen to point of use, you install natural gas powered fuel cell devices near existing natural gas distribution – that is very efficient.
The logic of the study appears to be correct, but I’ve not tried to validate all the assumptions. E.g., one assumption that is critical to their estimates of efficiency of direct electricity conversion for transport is the future availability of advanced battery technology.
If the conclusions are valid, I hope the Congress and Executive give this some careful consideration. Building a “hydrogen economy” is a hugely expensive and very long term undertaking. What if it’s the wrong way to go?
If you’re interested in climate change and associated energy policy I think you’ll find this a worthwhile read.
4 Responses to “Carrying the Energy Future: Comparing Hydrogen and Electricity for Transmission, Storage and Transportation”