Widespread Use of Hydrogen May Hurt Ozone Layer

Saeger writes "The AP has a story about a CalTech study which has found that the Hydrogen Economy may deplete the ozone layer by 'as much as 8 percent' on the assumption that '10 percent to 20 percent of the hydrogen would leak from pipelines, storage facilities, processing plants and fuel cells in cars and at power plants.'" CalTech's press release has more information.

overblown

[js7a]

I saw this at Yahoo News [yahoo.com] last night.

The Cal Tech study seems to be a little extreme:

...They acknowledged that much is still unknown about the hydrogen cycle and that technologies could be developed to curtail hydrogen releases, mitigating the problem....

Nejat Veziroglu, president of the International Association for Hydrogen Energy and director of the Clean Energy Research Institute at the University of Miami, expressed skepticism about the Cal Tech findings.

"Leakage will be much less than what they are considering," he said....

Cal Tech scientist Tracey Tromp, another of the authors, said that with advanced warnings of a problem, a hydrogen energy infrastructure could be fashioned to allow more control of leaks and reduce the adverse environmental impact.

Re:overblown

[sweeney37]

They had a discussion about this topic on Talk of the Nation [npr.org] on NPR [npr.org] today. One of the scientists that was on claimed that this report focused mainly on the extremes. For instance the 20% leakage they've been using is a worldwide amount. The national amount in the US is about 2%.

Mike

20% leakage

[tacokill]

...and with Hydrogen, which is expensive, you can bet your last dollar that the infrastructure in place will not tolerate even 2% leakage. Companies will not have the tolerance for leaking Hydrogen like they currently do with fossil fuels, which are cheap and easily replaceable.

20% leakage - at least!

[frovingslosh]

..and with Hydrogen, which is expensive, you can bet your last dollar that the infrastructure in place will not tolerate even 2% leakage. Companies will not have the tolerance for leaking Hydrogen like they currently do with fossil fuels, which are cheap and easily replaceable.

Gee, where to start with a statement like this? fossil fules are cheap and easily replaceable while hydrogen is not? Costs will depend on how it is produced, but hydrogen is certainly easily replaceable, far more so than fossil fules. What's more, leak a fossil fuel and you have polution and cleanup issues; leak hydrogen and it just goes up and destroys the ozone layer but leaves no trace at the point of the leak.

Infrastructure will not tolerate it? Why do they tolerate leaks of fossil fuel? But more importantly, much of the leak is likely to be at the end-users point, mostly the hydrogen run cars and SUVs. The infrastructure will not only tolerate that, but will likely cut corners so much that they greatly contribute to it. Will they add extra cost and weight to avoid the loss? Hardly likely in view of all past history.

But it's also important to realize that some of that gas is simply going to get away. Ever work with containment of hydrogen and helium? The damn stuff is tiny . It leaks right out through solid metal containers. Thick walled tanks, of course, hold it better than devices that have to have complex design and seals designed to retain the gas, but fuel cells and similar devices are going to leak, by the very nature of the gas they are working with. The small nature of the hydrogen atom, particularly when it's electron slips off into a metal, is exactly why fuel cells can work; the lone protron is able to pass through the fuel cell barrier. You're not going to be able to work with such tiny atoms and not have a significant loss in conditions that are reasonable for a car.

Re:20% leakage - at least!

[frovingslosh]

I never even knew that a gas had a size!

Gas doesn't have a size. Gas atoms do. Helium is famous for outgasing. While you can have a neon tube and fifty years later find that it still has "all" of the neon in it, a helium laser tube will leak the helium right through the walls of the laser tube in a year or so. It would be nice to prevent this, as it's the primary cause of failure of expensive laser tubes, but it just isn't pratical to make a helium laser tube that will not outgas.

Years ago (in the 70'

Re:overblown

[cperciva]

For instance the 20% leakage they've been using is a worldwide amount

Also, the 20% quoted isn't really leakage. It's "spillage", aka bribes and extortion. I think it's safe to assume that the people taking these bribes aren't going to just release them into the atmosphere.

Re:overblown

[Mr_Matt]

Not only that, but unlike catalytic destruction of ozone (as with CFCs and such) the oxidation of this hydrogen means that the hydrogen is consumed. So I can't see how a hydrogen sink could approach the ozone loss levels attributed to CFCs and such - naively, I would say that it's probably not as big a deal. Naively, of course - this still merits some attention.

But hey, publish publish publish, whatever the cost, right? :)

Wrong!

[Phronesis]

This myth is completely without substance. Volcanoes introduce very little chlorine into the stratosphere. Stratospheric chlorine has been measured [nasa.gov] to be more than 80% due to CFCs, whereas the largest volcanic injection ever observed (El Chichon, which you mention) increased the stratospheric chlorine content by only 2% [nasa.gov]. When people look at the chlorine content of the stratosphere, they find it to be dominated by CFCs, so if you want to blame nature, you must find a natural source of CFCs.

This study by [nasa.gov]

Re:overblown

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only one problem with the future "hydrogen economy".

Sure, hydrogen is in abundance, in outer space. Who's going to go get it?

What's the major source for hydrogen right now? Natural Gas. What's the major byproduct of extracting hydrogen from Natural Gas? Carbon Dioxide.

Sure, you can do electrolysis. Unfortunately, you need a lot of electricity to do that. Until nuclear power becomes popular again, there's not enough capacity in our power infrastructure. Not to mention that, in the US, most power is generated from coal.

Have you seen the price of Natural Gas lately?

It will be interesting to watch how we overcome these hurdles.

Re:overblown

[Wyatt Earp]

Nuclear

The idea is to use a nuclear reactor to provide the heat for breaking up fossil fuels or water to free the hydrogen

http://www.uic.com.au/nip73.htm

http://www.senate.gov/~craig/releases/pr032603a. ht m

Re:overblown

[nomel]

There's a lot in outer space, but I read somewhere a long time ago, that it's about 1 molecule per square mile...so to make sure that you usually catch at least one molecule every mile, your collector would have to have a "mouth" that was one square mile in diameter.

At first, I couldn't believe that your statement that most of the power in the USA came from coal.
but, from this

http://www.ornl.gov/ORNLReview/rev26-34/text/co l ma in.html

Partly because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost of c

Re:overblown

[imnoteddy]

that it's about 1 molecule per square mile

Space isn't two dimensional (square mile) - the measure would have to be a certain number of molecules per cubic mile.

Re:overblown

[shotfeel]

Of course "harvesting" like this would probably burn more energy than you collect.

correct link

[macshune]

is right here [ornl.gov]

Heh

[autopr0n]

Partly because of these concerns about radioactivity and the cost of containing it, the American public and electric utilities have preferred coal combustion as a power source. Today 52% of the capacity for generating electricity in the United States is fueled by coal, compared with 14.8% for nuclear energy. Although there are economic justifications for this preference, it is surprising for two reasons.

dosn't coal dump like 10 times as much radioactive waste per unit of power then nuclear energy?

radioactive coal

[js7a]

Doesn't coal dump like 10 times as much radioactive waste per unit of power then nuclear energy?

Yes, in the U.S. The way the Europeans scrub it, I think it works out to between 3 and 5 times as much, unless you count Chernobel.

Watching Alan Greenspan on C-SPAN this week, taking Energy committee questions in favor of fossil fuels, and not taking every opportunity to suggest building wind power (because he loves globalization so much he's willing to compromise energy independence, I suppose.)

Re:overblown

[interiot]

The European Union plans to reach oil-independance by 2050, and the way they plan to do it is to only use hydrogen as an energy storage mechanism, and to use a variety of different renewable energy sources (sun, wind, (nuclear?)) to generate the energy to begin with. Relying on a multitude of energy sources is obviously beneficial.

The reason hydrogen is so important in the above scheme is that things like solar/wind/water power flucuate a lot, eg. are only available during certain parts of the day/year. Electrical power in its native form can't be stored, but its conversion to and from hydrogen is very environmentally friendly.

This is a long-term vision. It might even be agressive to discuss this now, but at some point we're going to have to get away from oil as our main energy source, at which point we're either going to have to switch to an unrenewable source (not smart) or move to the above scheme (smart). The only question is when. Natural gas/oil are not the in our long-term future.

Re:overblown

[rekkanoryo]

So we're supposed to fear the worst unnecessarily? Or did I misread this?

Also, I've read in paper-only publications that hydrogen isn't as feasible as alcohol-only fuels--a fuel cartridge as small as an inkjet printer cartridge such as the ones that fit in the Canon BCI-21 print head can power a cell phone for a month or more using alcohol--so maybe studies like this will push more toward the alcohol alternative, which will actually be cheaper to convert to since most infrastructure is already equipped for the distribution of liquid fuels.

Fossil Fuels

[frieked]

Maybe it's just because IANAES (I am not an environmental scientist) but how is this any worse than the crap that comes out of our fossil fuel based economy as it is?

Re:Fossil Fuels

[jmv]

Don't know if it's better or worse... You get to choose: global warming or skin cancer. Actually, if you use methanol-based fuel-cells, you might actually get both (CH3OH->H2 creates CO2 and likely leaks some H2).

Re:Fossil Fuels

[vondo]

What nearly everyone seems to forget (including the NPR report last night) is that hydrogen is not an energy source any more than the wall socket your computer is plugged into is.

Hydrogen has to be produced. Currently, most of it comes from fossil fuels in a process that releases CO2. Some if it comes from electrolosis, which requires energy which comes from sources like burning fossil fuels.

The only thing hydrogen would do in our current situation would be to move pollution from your car to a power plant.

Re:Fossil Fuels

[Rich0]

Still, it has a major advantage in the fact that it is commercially viable to burn oil in a power plant with sophisticated scrubbing equipment to minimize the pollution output. A plant generating hydrogen to power 100,000 cars will not produce as much pollution as 100,000 cars will. EPA regulations are much easier to enforce on a couple of thousand power plants than on a couple hundred million cars. You also decouple energy use from energy production - which means that if a more efficient system for producing energy is discovered you can switch to it easily without rendering obsolete every car that exists.

For the short term hybrid vehicles are definitely the solution - they don't require any infrastrucutre and reduce pollution and oil use immediately. For the longer term you need a system that can run at high power for extended periods of time if you want to use it in cars. Hydrogen is probably your best bet. How you make the hydrogen is up to you... Eventually it might be made using solar power, but for now you are still helping the environment even if the hydrogen is made by burning coal...

Re:Fossil Fuels

[irving47]

For the short term hybrid vehicles are definitely the solution - they don't require any infrastrucutre and reduce pollution and oil use immediately

I really hope it's the way to go and becomes more and more efficient. But as it is now, the cars pretty much have to be made of tin-foil (light light light) to gain a lot of mileage.

Re:Fossil Fuels

[athakur999]

They're coming. Ford will be selling a hybrid version of their Escape SUV soon, which should get 35-40MPG.

Granted, it's no Expedition, but it's not a Honda Insight Insight either.

Re:Fossil Fuels

[Kaz Riprock]

The only thing hydrogen would do in our current situation would be to move pollution from your car to a power plant.

Many people don't realize that you can force a few thousand power plants to keep their emissions down to reasonable or even sub-reasonable levels a lot easier than you can get a few hundred thousand 15 year old cars to stop spewing the same crap into the air. Centralization of the pollution means that we can exhibit a much higher level of control over the source.

Re:Fossil Fuels

[Abcd1234]

What nearly everyone seems to forget (including the NPR report last night) is that hydrogen is not an energy source any more than the wall socket your computer is plugged into is.

Ugh, that applies to almost every energy medium you will ever find on this planet. Fossil fuels themselves are stored up energy... they just happen to store solar energy from millions of years ago and are thus, from our point of view, free.

Hydrogen has to be produced. Currently, most of it comes from fossil fuels in a process that releases CO2. Some if it comes from electrolosis, which requires energy which comes from sources like burning fossil fuels.

The only thing hydrogen would do in our current situation would be to move pollution from your car to a power plant.

So? This is a great thing! This means that the pollution is localized, meaning it's easier to control, and you only have on the order of thousands (guess) of facilities to upgrade when new pollution-control technologies appear (unlike having to fix, say, a hundred million cars). Moreover, by having centralized energy production, we can role out new production technologies easier AND we can use technologies which operate better at larger scales (eg, nuclear or fusion power, hydroelectric, solar, wind, etc).

Re:Fossil Fuels

[jellisky]

The only thing hydrogen would do in our current situation would be to move pollution from your car to a power plant.

--------

Close, but there is another benefit to hydrogen that many people don't remember. There's lots of ways of producing the hydrogen needed for the cycle. Consider that a secondary problem, though. Fossil fuels are far from unlimited. The hydrogen fuel, though, excluding small leakages out of the atmosphere, is nearly limitless. Supply worries are nearly eliminated, once a stable production system can be put into place.

Granted, the proper production system is not in place yet. But as some other technologies (solar cells, wind turbines) that are less polluting improve, we would be able to move to those technologies for hydrogen production WITHOUT giving up the things that run off the hydrogen. Instead of replacing the whole system, you now only have to rework one part of it.

It's a very powerful idea when you stop and think about it. Right now, your statement is probably right. But, think about the consequences a little further down the road. THAT'S why hydrogen power is so attractive.

-Jellisky

Re:Fossil Fuels

[misterhaan]

hydrogen is not an energy source

if people keep believing that i may as well give up trying to discover cold fusion . . . and i was SO close!

Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! MORE!! 6+ This is the TRUTH!

[Abcd1234]

It takes MORE, I repeat MORE energy to manufacture the hydrogen than the hydrogen returns.

Err, that's called thermodynamics. It happens to apply to every energy storage mechanism which exists. Your plant biomass idea is really just a glorified solar-energy collector, which is why it appears to involve an energy surplus. But I could do the same thing by using some (albeit, highly efficient) solar cells to crack hydrogen into water. It's the SAME THING! The difference is in how you collect the energy and the form in which it's stored.

Incidentally, I suspect your idea doesn't actually generate an energy surplus. Or did you think you could harvest the plant material and convert it into ethanol without expending any energy?

Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! MORE!! 6+ This is the TRUTH!

[anotherone]

Biomass (including the waste from other lines of industry) can be used to create fuel grade ethanol. Not just corn, people.

...

ETHANOL IS PEOPLE! PEEEEEE-PULLLLL!

Re:Fossil Fuels

[afidel]

Well since the energy for the hydrogen economy has to come from somewhere the net pollutants could conceivably actually increase. In the U.S. the energy for hydrogen production would largely come from coal, whether centralized prdouction of electricity from coal+transmission losses+hydrogen production and loss would be less than the current polution from internal combustion engines would probably only be determined through lots of analysis of long term data long after the hydrogen economy takes off (assumin

Re:Fossil Fuels

[terraformer]

IAAES (I am an environmental scientist/policy analyst) and it is definitely better than fossil fuels. The thing is, if this study is correct, and that is a big if based on how little is known about hydrogen in the environment, it will slow Hydrogen adoption by increasing costs associated with it's use and through fear of creating damage to the ozone layer, thereby extending how long fossil fuels continue to remain dominant. Hydrogen (more specifically hydrogen rich fuels) is seen as the next step in portable fuel. As time has moved forward from the industrial age, the hydrogen:caron ratio in fuels has swung from being very carbon rich (wood,coal) to less carbon rich (natural gas).

not as bad

[jr87]

at least most major cities will be intact and not underwater.

FUD me please?

[jmays]

This hydrogen pollution especially occurs when the hydrogen is mixed in a 2:1 ratio with oxygen.

Right.

Re:FUD me please?

[Tyrdium]

Of course! [dhmo.org]

Re:FUD me please?

[aoteoroa]

That was the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

For anybody too busy to follow the link here is an excerpt from an information rich web site that outlines the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide.

What are some of the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

• Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
• Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
• Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
• DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
• Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
• Contributes to soil erosion.
• Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
• Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
• Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
• Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
• Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere.
• Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide. Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

• as an industrial solvent and coolant, in nuclear power plants,
• by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
• by elite athletes to improve performance,
• in the production of Styrofoam,
• in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
• as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
• in abortion clinics,
• as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
• as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
• in cult rituals,
• by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families,
• by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
• by pedophiles and pornographers (for uses we'd rather not say here),
• by the clientele at a number of homosexual bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,
• historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
• in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
• by the Serbian military as authorized by Slobodan Milosevic in their recent ethnic cleansing campaign,
• in animal research laboratories, and
• in pesticide production and distribution.

(Hopefully you realize that Dihydrogen Monoxide is water)

Penn and Teller

[tacokill]

Penn and Teller did a bit on this recently on their show "Bullshit!" on Showtime.

They tooks these points (almost exactly, in fact) and sent a woman out to gather signatures during "Earth Day". The woman gathered signatures from 85% of the people she talked to. Her petition was to ban dihydrogen monoxide because it was bad for the environment. Their point was that most, but not all, of the people consumed by the environmental movement are doing so out of emotion and really did not even have a basic un

Thank god!!

[Ikoma Andy]

I was afraid the Environmentalist Bubble was going to burst!

No big deal.

[American AC in Paris]

Researchers said in a report Thursday saying that if hydrogen replaced fossil fuels to run everything from cars to power plants, large amounts of hydrogen would drift into the stratosphere as a result of leakage and indirectly cause increased depletion of the ozone.

This shouldn't be too hard to deal with.

All we need to keep this problem in check is an oversized Zippo in orbit right near the ozone layer.

Activate it every Fourth of July for one helluva fireworks show.

Re:No big deal.

[Chagatai]

If you think about it, normal lightning bolts would cause any excess hydrogen to release its energy and become water. The point that the CalTech crew was saying is that this reaction would cause lower levels of the stratosphere to cool, thus hindering the ozone repletion.

I don't buy it. Their model would work if everything changed overnight to a hydrogen economy, but as countries like China will inevtiably use fossil fuels to take care of their economies, it would take a revolution to match their models.

Re:No big deal.

[56ker]

Actually the byproduct of hydrogen combustion is H2O - which in the wrong places acts as a greenhouse gas....

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Hydrogen Failure!

[kin_korn_karn]

Oh, the humanity!

big assumption

[Tuxinatorium]

I'm sure they could avoid letting 10-20% of it leak out.

Re:big assumption

[krlynch]

The big question is: how?

We already lose lots (don't have the number handy) of gasoline and natural gas to similar loss mechanisms (gas stations smell like gas for a reason ....). We also lose lots of electricity to transmission losses (up to 50% in some markets!). And lets not forget oil spills from grounded tankers. And we haven't been able to solve any of these problems despite 100 years of trying.

Why do you expect hydrogen to be any different? I would naively expect the losses to be much greate

Hogwash

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a conspiracy by an evil coalition of blimp manufacturers who share a concern that their products will cease to function properly should the atmosphere become contaminated with too much Hydrogen.

Alt-what?

[$alex_n42]

Does this mean we need an alternative fuel for an alternative fuel?

Uranium!

[Tackhead]

> Does this mean we need an alternative fuel for an alternative fuel?

Uranium. It's basically heavily-reprocessed hydrogen, but it packs a lot more energy per unit volume, and there are no greenhouse gases or ozone-depletion effects.

Note that producing U from H2 is even less efficient than producing H2 from H20 and electricity. To make U, you typically have to start with about 10-20 solar masses of hydrogen, let it simmer for 50 million years, and then blow the star to smithereens, frying everyth

Only applies to pure hydrogen

[worst_name_ever]

One would hope that the "hydrogen-based economy" would not be operating on pure gaseous - or even liquid - hydrogen! Gaseous hydrogen is annoying to keep sealed inside a system with any number of fittings (those tiny molecules like to leak out of anything) not to mention is extremely flammable.

I was under the impression that the "hydrogen-based economy" would actually transport its energy around in a more easily handled form, e.g. methanol [energy.gov] which can be trucked around and handled more easily than pure hydrogen.

To me, this paper appears to be saying: "If the hydrogen economy is based around this arbitrary and unworkable assumption we made, bad things would happen!" Well, okay...

Re:Only applies to pure hydrogen

[colinduplantis]

The article briefly mentioned it, but Chrysler (and others?) are working on [slashdot.org] using NaBH4 to carry the hydrogen. The NaBH4 can be induced to yield its hydrogen, leaving borax, a common element in laundry soap. The borax can be recycled to produce more NaBH4 (or Tide, I guess), essentially acting as transportation vehicle for the hydrogen. I imagine NaBH4 has a lower energy density than fossil fuels, particularly gasoline, but it may be safer and easier to produce and ship around. IANACE (I Am Not a Chemical Engineer), of course.

Re:Only applies to pure hydrogen

[Noren]

This isn't my field, but I want to a talk on this recently.

There are a lot of different hydrogen storage projects being worked on- it's one of the few non-defense scientific areas where government funding has been increasing substantially. National labs and universities as well as corporate entities are working on this. There are a number of difficulties to get the ideal hydrogen storage cell. They'd like it to:

1. Store a lot of hydrogen per volume
2. Store a lot of hydrogen per mass (10%-15% of the ma

FACE IT

[CiXeL]

The greater the size of our population grows, the less buffer we will have between us and the environment. The greater our numbers climb into the billions and finally trillions, the greater the effects our slightest alteration to the environment will create. One person with a campfire is nothing, 100 million people with campfires and you start to get some serious pollution. One person hiking through the woods is nothing, thousands of people visiting a national forest every year is like throwing a 40,000 person concert there.

Its our numbers, not the action that destroys our environment.

No matter what we do, we will pollute and destroy.

Re:FACE IT

[Guipo]

or one volcano could put more polution into the atomosphere than humans ever could.

Guipo

Re:FACE IT

[AvantLegion]

Its our numbers, not the action that destroys our environment.

You're right. And so we here at Slashdot have elected you as our first "number-thinning" sacrifice.

Re:FACE IT

[Wireless Joe]

"One person with a campfire is nothing, 100 million people with campfires and..."

...you have Yellowstone National Park on a fourth of July weekend.

Re:FACE IT

[forgetmenot]

I can't quote the source but I'm sure someone can google it.. but a fairly recent study (by the UN I believe) has predicted the world's population will peak sometime within the this century at a relatively manageable level. More than now obviously, but not the exponential nightmare the doomsayers predict. Fact is, the more affluent societies get, the slower the population increases. Hell, some European countries have negative growth. China and India aren't going to keep ballooning forever and are on the rig

Re:Everyone I know...

[powerlinekid]

That has nothing to do with the population increasing. People have been having children since we evolved... its what we do.

What is causing this is that people are living longer. More babies + less deaths = More people.
However, there is a limit to how long people can live (I believe 120 years and then cells stop regenerating). So no the population isn't going to grow exponentially forever.

Re:Everyone I know...

[Abcd1234]

Every I know is having children. I want to have children myself someday. Gay and Lesbian couples are having children. (which may have been nature's built-in method of population control since left to their own devices they can't procreate) Obviously

You're assuming, based on your limited view of the world, that everyone behaves like you. Here's a counter example (from my limited view). I'm not having children. A number of my friends aren't having children. The others who want kids often only plan to

wha?

[tacokill]

"No matter what we do, we will pollute and destroy."

Pollute and destroy according to who? Us? Why does that matter? I mean, the earth doesn't share our prejudices towards "pollution" and our "destruction" of resources. From the earth's point of view, that is just another event taking place within a larger system -- that we, as humans, also happen to be a part of. Remember, nature includes EVERYTHING. It's not just trees and birds and butterflies. It's *everything*. The nastiest, most toxic, nucle

Re:FACE IT

[groomed]

The human population won't grow into the trillions, because there is a strong negative correlation between GDP and birth rates, and there are no reason to suppose that this trend will reverse itself anytime soon.

Birth rates have been steadily dropping all over the world since WWII. In countries such as Japan [cia.gov] and Sweden [cia.gov], the birth rate is so low that most experts predict it to fall below the replacement rate within the next two decades. Some countries, such as Latvia [cia.gov], are in fact already faced with negative

Re:FACE IT

[swillden]

Its our numbers, not the action that destroys our environment.

Well then, I guess this [churchofeuthanasia.org] is the answer.

Re:FACE IT

[csguy314]

Everyone complaining about human overpopulation is so full of crap. A hydrogen based economy, regardles of this fuddy article, would be much better because it's NOT numbers that cause massive pollution. It's NORTH AMERICANS, myself included.
Americans and Canadians are by far the biggest consumers of energy, on a per capita basis, in the world. The vast majority of our industry and economies could be changed, quite easily, to run more efficiently. But instead we're running to waste as much bloody energy and money as we possibly can. Driving down the highway I'm surrounded by people driving by themselves in gigantic SUVs. Toronto is especially bad for this, more than 90% of people on our highways don't carpool.
At least if we had a hydrogen based economy it would be reliant on a more reusable energy source, but we'd still be the biggest wasters.
Any arguments about food shortages are similarly ridiculous. Aside from the 30% obesity we have, there is a massive amount of food wasted in North America, including dumping of grains to keep markets competitive.
North America makes up about 5% of the worlds population, but look how much of the other 95% we hold sway over.

20% leakage?

[nuggz]

20% leakage is a lot.

If they include system monitoring (like that wonderful check engine light) We should be able to get very low leakage rates.

Yes people ignore the check engine light, but that is only because they aren't losing 20% of their fuel.

It's an engineering problem

[panurge]

I spent some time some years ago in a facility that handled a hydrogen mixture.
It is indeed very hard to prevent hydrogen leaks (the small molecule goes straight through even slightly porous metal) and it is difficult to detect, except when you get up to a couple of percent when a very small spark can cause a very interesting experience (like the roof being embedded in the car park.) On the other hand, that's the reason why a lot of work has to go into preventing gross leaks.

The same problem existed with the original town gas, which was practically odorless (CO + hydrogen + nitrogen) and of course the solution was to put in an odorous tracer gas. I am sure that with modern sensor technology a suitable tracer could be found that would be detectable in even minute quantities

Given that in the past we've been cavalier about low BP compounds and their ill effects - benzene in gas, CFCs, - it would be really good if this time governments and environmental scientists got their act together in advance. Leakage is not a reason not to use hydrogen, any more than the possibility of a leak is a reason not to put in plumbing. It's just a potential problem to be prevented.

Re:It's an engineering problem

[panurge]

You would be correct if the main risk was of leaking through porosity, but in my own experience the main problems were joint leakage and using the wrong materials (not everyone knows this, but the design of tubes to contain high pressure and vacuum can be very different.) This could perhaps be detected with a low concentration of e.g. ammonia. The same problem exists with conventional fuels, where the seals required for gasoline are different for those required for, say, methanol. Typically, concern over hy

Sure, if you treat it like oil

[Chairboy]

This really applies if you treat it like Oil with centralized production, pipelines to sub-stations, etc.

The reason this article might not reflect what actually happens is that hydrogen production might be done on a decentralized local scale. There's no technological reason you can't make hydrogen gas AT the fill station or home, it's just a matter of the economy of scale. Initially, you might see factories extracting hydrogen for shipment, but the logical next step would be to have extraction facilities at the fill stations that crack water. It's not feasible right now because the easiest way for a small operation to make hydrogen is by electrically seperating the hydrogen from water, but there are other catalytic or new tech (insert trek speak here) ways that could get it to a point where you have a box the size of an airconditioner that takes water in one end, and pumps compressed hydrogen out the other.

Also, the article doesn't take into account another likely source of hydrogen that might be used, and that's natural gas. There are already devices that crack natural gas catalytically to extract the hydrogen for use in fuel cells, so it's conceivable that until the technology reaches the 'gas station hydrogen extraction' level, we might all be using CNG for our fuel cells. Since CNG has big fat molecules, it won't leak like hydrogen.

Soooo... while the article is interesting, the problems it describes can be overcome and probably would need to be to make it economical in the first place.

Re:Sure, if you treat it like oil

[micromoog]

...you have a box the size of an airconditioner that takes water in one end, and pumps compressed hydrogen out the other.

You forgot "and has a tube that passersby can suck on to get high off the pure oxygen byproduct".

Problems

[WatertonMan]

There have already been a lot of criticisms of this. For instance they determine leakage as about 20% based upon existing hydrogen leaks. But that uses all existing pipelines including many very old pipelines in Russian and China. In the United States existing leakage is estimated at 2%.

The other problem is that the ozone hole is repairing itself while the paper calculates problems in I believe 2060 - but uses the existing ozone levels. The amount of hydrogen needed to have the effects the authors discuss thus takes place many decades after the type of ozone hole analyzed.

There were a few other problems as well. (A perhaps overly optimistic estimate of when hyrdogen would be the dominant energy transmission method, for instance)

Re:Problems

[Kaz Riprock]

For instance they determine leakage as about 20% based upon existing leaks. But that uses all existing pipelines including many very old pipelines in Russian and China. In the United States existing leakage is estimated at 2%.

What makes you think that in 2060, China and Russia will be using spotless transportation and creation facilities for hydrogen to help lower the leak rate to closer to the US levels?

In other words, why isn't it just as faulty to think that Russia and China will improve their safety

Well it seems they've forgotten

[clckwrkMalChick]

If the hydrogen is produced by Methane reformation, there is a carbon that's lost during that process which would most likely be released into the atmosphere. Contributing even more to global warming.

Conflict of Interests

[EpsCylonB]

Ever since Bush this year singled out hydrogen development as an energy priority, the fuel has been the buzzword in energy debates. Congress plans to pump more than $3 billion into hydrogen research over the next five years in hopes of putting fuel-cell-powered cars into showrooms by 2020. Industry is spending billions more to develop fuel cells, although their widespread use is probably still decades away.

Whats the betting that this will be held back until the oil companies have pumped every last drop ou

Thie paper is full of bogus assumptions

[Ponder]

1. leakage of 20% a figure based on world wide natural gas industry which includes places like the Russia, and other former eastern block countries with notoriously poor maintenance records. actual leakage from modern hydrogen systems is of the order of 2%
2. article assumes 100% hydrogen based economy by 2050. the most optimistic estimates put hydrogen use at 30% by 2050.

looks like they are off by a factor of 30 minimum.

You can't get something for nothing...

[Infonaut]

That is, you can't get a sensationalist "scientific report" like this unless you grease some palms.

Now who, I wonder, would be interested in smearing the "hydrogen economy" concept. Hmm.. I'm drawing a blank [exxonmobil.com]... .

Hydrogen Is A Boondoggle Anyway

[istartedi]

You have to get the hydrogen from some energy-intensive process anyway. Either you are refactoring fossil fuels, or using nuclear to split water, or some other energy intensive process. Sure, you could use solar to do some of that, but you could use solar to charge electric cars too--if you want to turn the entire Desert Southwest into one giant panel farm. Of course, solar hurts the environment too. Yep, you heard me. That giant panel farm alters the "albedo" aka reflectivity of the Earth, which changes weather patterns. Nevermind that the shade would also alter the desert ecosystem.

What we should be doing is encouraging advanced modular hybrid technology. Idling and braking waste huge quantities of fuel. With modular hybrid systems (think, multiple small engines you can lift out of your car and swap like video cards) we would encourage innovation in conversion efficiency and alternative fuels. Also, drill ANWR. Yep, that's right. Drill the SOB. Send the environmentalists to the Middle East and see if they can persuade them to stop pumping for a change.

Just once I'd like to see our leadership encourage conservation and local production.

Republicans need to pull their heads out of their posteriors and realize that conservation!=anti business. Democrats need to do the same thing and realize that production!=destruction.

I'm not optimistic that any of this will happen anytime soon. It makes too much sense.

Re:Hydrogen Is A Boondoggle Anyway

[afidel]

Actually todays energy usage in the US could be supplied by 1,000sq miles of modern multilayer high yield photovoltaic cells in Nevada, excluding transmission losses. That's only 100 miles X 10 miles, hardly the whole desert! Of course the amount of materials and nasty chemicals needed to make all those cells would be pretty darn high but hey there is no such thing as polution free energy. The closest thing would be microwaved solar from space but even that has some problems with ionization of the atmospher

damn ozone layer...

[ceswiedler]

Can't we have a radiation shield for the Earth which is a little more reliable? A few CFCs, a little hydrogen, and it's disappearing all over the place. Bad design. Someone should have considered these possibilities before installing it. If I installed a firewall which was this delicate, I'd be canned.

Of course, IPv6 will probably fix all this.

Re:damn ozone layer...

[powerlinekid]

Well sure... but do your firewalls have 4 billion year uptimes?

I think its time we start thinking about upgrading to Ozone 2.0. Sure it'll be tough but its backwards compatible and I really like the UV filter that comes installed.

Re:damn ozone layer...

[cperciva]

Can't we have a radiation shield for the Earth which is a little more reliable?

Err... no, not really. Ozone is a good UV filter precisely because it is unstable.

well...

[deadsaijinx*]

looks like we're just going to have to ban hydrogen. and i don't just mean banning the use of it as a fuel, I mean banning it from existance. What has hydrogen ever done for ME anyway?

Key outstanding questions

[Phronesis]

The paper in Science emphasizes that the uptake of tropospheric H2 by soil is unknown and could possibly completely compensate for an increased anthropogenic hydrogen burden.

Another key question is how the residence time of H2 in the stratosphere compares to the residence time of CO2 in the troposphere. If H2 has a significantly shorter residence time than the 120 year residence time of anthropogenic CO2, then it would be a good choice to switch to H2 today and then replace H2 with another alternative at a future date, since the H2 would drop back to its natural level faster than CO2 would. If H2 has a longer residence time in the stratosphere, then the best choice might be to stick with CO2 emissions.

yet another reason

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

that we should go with biodiesel [biodiesel.org] and synthetic diesel [dieselnet.com] fuels.

Scientists: Living May Cause Death

[heli0]

Widespread birth today will cause widespread death in years to come. Although the time frame is unknown, scientists believe that a large population today will lead to a large number of deaths in the future.

"It just the nature of things" quoted one Harvard PhD who wish to remain nameless.

The fear of massive number of deaths has the Pentagon on high alert. CDC is issuing warnings and are placing people in danger of dying in quarantine.

According to CDC officials, the death rate of this epidemic will far exc

This is a lot of speculation

[UnknowingFool]

Since the hydrogen cycle is still unknown, all of these possible outcomes are speculation. This is different than CFC problem in three ways:

1) The reaction chemistry for CFC and ozone at high altitudes was postulated and then proven by observation. In this case, the scientists are assuming that the 2H2+ O2 => 2H2O will be the same at high altitudes as it is on the surface. Since the hydrogen cycle is unknown, they can't be sure the reaction will be as stable and prevalent as it is down here.

2) In the CFC-ozone reaction, CFC is a catalyst that is not consumed by the reaction. Hydrogen is consumed in the water reaction.

3) By their nature CFCs stay in the upper atmoshphere for some time before coming back down. Hydrogen is lighter and more likely to escape the atmosphere and head off into space. I remember reading somewhere that scientists estimate that the Earth has lost >80% of its hydrogen since its formation. I could be wrong but that's what I remember.

Why not just create ozone?

[beldraen]

This may be a folly question, but I've always wondered why if we're so worried about ozone depleation, why not just mandate countries need to produce an amount to offset the destruction we supposedly cause?

Re:Why not just create ozone?

[sbeitzel]

Well, it's not quite so simple. Here's some info about ozone (O3).

1. When sunlight hits oxygen (O2), ozone (O3) gets created. The light boosts up the energy of the oxygen molecules enough to turn 3O2 into 2O3. This is what makes up the Earth's ozone layer: sunlight hitting the atmosphere. Ozone also tends to absorb ultraviolet light, which is why we even care about there being lots of ozone up at the top of the atmosphere -- human cells tend to develop cancer when they're bombarded by UV light.
2. Ozone is dens

10% = 8%

[Fished]

If 10% leakage causes an 8% depletion, then if we just pumped the hydrogen straight into the air we could get rid of 80% of the ozone and save the hassle of having a middle-man! Woo-hoo! Way to go Cal-Tech!

It won't

[ToadMan8]

I simply won't. How profitable or economic (company and consumer perspective, respectively) is it to vent your Hydrogen into the atmosphere? Correct: it's not. There is no practical reason why people would allow leaks as large as 10 - 20 percent to exist, as it's simply wasting money. The market will keep this from happening. Hydrogen venters will be poor, and can't afford more hydrogen to vent. Even evil plotters trying to give universal skin cancer. Hey, I should try that and buy bananna boat stock

We can't win

[Tablizer]

No matter what, it has side-effects.

Nuclear: radiation poisening risk

Coal: dust causes cancer

Gas: Kills ozone layer

Hydrogen: Kills ozone layer

Windmills: Throw off earth's equitorial tilt and ice tossed from blades stabs children playing in thier backyards and the humming sounds keep people awake at night, turning them into postal killers.

Oxen (pulling carts): Poop causes mathane, which pollutes and spreads fly-borne desease.

Staying home and jacking off: Blindness

There's no way out. Lets just pollute the fscking planet and be done with it.

Trade Off

[peatbakke]

... so it's not a perfect solution, but how do those numbers stack up vs. other fuel sources? For example, if our current carbon economy produces more ozone depeleting than a hydrogen economy ... well, hey, I'll take the hydrogen.

Numbers are irrelevent without relative comparisons.

Helping republicans ?

[ThomasFlip]

This is quite possibly the only environmental study in the history of modern science which may actually help the republicans.

you want non-polluting transportation?

[extrarice]

Walk.

Told ya.

[inertia187]

I belive this falls under the "some damn thing we can't think of" [slashdot.org] category.

Still, I am not of the opinion that it's ever as bad as "they" say it is.

I'll just shutup and go back to my code now...that I can do at home...without driving to work...so I don't have to pay for gas...that doesn't do as much damage as "they" think it does anyway...so there.

Assumptions upon assumptions

[drteknikal]

If the fuel cells are still in development, and the distribution infrastructure hasn't even been designed, let alone built yet, how can they defend the assumption that 10-20% of the hydrogen in the system would be vented into the atmosphere? In the fuel cells, isn't the hydrogen catalyzed into a solid?

This sounds like an attempt to discredit something that isn't even designed yet, based on bogus assumptions.

Re:And then... one spark...

[tmasssey]

And this is why 10 to 20% of H2 will not leak out like it might with Gasoline. First of all, you don't pump hydrogen out of the ground. You have to make it, and you can control how you do so. Second, because it can be made anywhere there's an electric power plant, you don't have to ship it halfway around the world in supertankers. Second, it's *extremely* explosive. The cost of leaking even a small part of the amount you're moving is death in a fiery inferno.

All-in-all, I think they'll reduce the leakage before H2 becomes practical...

Re:And then... one spark...

[Sylver Dragon]

Of course, this is ignoring the fact that gasoline is actually worse than hydrogen about this. Also, the H2 will probably disapate into the atmosphere too fast to get to any sort of useful concentration. Remember, that while (2H2 + O2 -> 2H20 + energy) if there isn't much of the H2 in one place, there isn't going to be much energy. This is why H2 is usually held in ballons before it is used, its just not useful while its spaying out of the wine bottle. It just disapates way too fast.

Re:And then... one spark...

[antirename]

Yep... glad I'm not the only techie with a chem/pyro background here :)

Re:And then... one spark...

[Mr. Flibble]

Second, it's *extremely* explosive. The cost of leaking even a small part of the amount you're moving is death in a fiery inferno.

Actually, this statement is a little off. It is a common perception however. Gasoline is a far worse substance to handle or deal with than Hydrogen. Gasoline can stick to you, spill, and it can explode as well.

Ironically, the destruction of the Hindenburg, which is the famous example of the dangers of Hydrogen was not as bad as people imagine, the majority of the problem was that the skin of the ship was rocket fuel. The gas, while it was burning ferociously, can be seen to be floating up and away from the ship itself. The most interesting thing about the Hindenburg disaster is that only 35 of the 97 passengers died. If Hydrogen was a heavier than air gas, this would not have been the case.

Since Hydrogen rises very fast, if you have a leak, it immediately seeks to escape out into the air. Not so with gasoline, which will form a dangerous pool on the ground. Movies such as "Chain Reaction" (ARRRGHHH!!!) perpetuate the "risk" that hydrogen poses. Given the choice, being involved in a gasoline leak (pools on ground) or Hydrogen (rapidly floats up into sky, or celing in an enclosed environment) I would choose being around Hydrogen as I could hit the deck, and have the gas float up and away from me.

Re:The Big 3 Auto Companies

[theLOUDroom]

The Big 3 Auto Companies paid how much to get this propaganda started?

I don't think this is really a troll.

Who paid for this study? It's a legitmate question, and you're a moron if you don't ask it.

That said, the claims are ridiculous. Claiming 10 to 20% of the hydrogen is going to leak? Yeah right! Economics alone will dictate that this does not happen. Would you buy a car with a gas tank with no cap, so a significant portion of your fuel evaporated? Of course not, that fuel costs money. The

Re:Big Hydrogen?

[Jason Earl]

The Big Hydrogen Tycoon will look exactly like the Big Oil Tycoon because the Hyrdogen will be extracted from fossil fuels.

The fact of the matter is that Hydrogen isn't an energy source, like solar power, nuclear power, or fossil fuels, it is merely an energy container (like a battery). Hydrogen is either going to be obtained by breaking down fossil fuels or by electrolizing water with electricity generated from fossil fuels (or possibly nuclear power). The Hydrogen merely moves the point of pollution f

Re:Which is it?

[DuBois]

Really good question. You don't hear about CFC's "destroying" the ozone layer any more because the evidence that this happens isn't anywhere near to being conclusive See Ozone, Skin Cancer, and the SST [sepp.org] for more information.