95% of the hydrogen produced comes from natural gas (ref DOE). Just burn the natural gas (if you want to use an internal combustion engine)

If you are going to use electrolysis, why not directly use the electricity that process requires, instead of using it to make hydrogen? That was my point, hydrogen by those methods is a storage medium, not a fuel in the sense that we have any reserves of it.

Here in Vancouver we are home to Ballard, a leader in fuel cells. However, the buses that are being replaced by our transit system are largely trolley buses, since they are cheaper than fuel cell buses and skip the hydrogen step, turning mains power directly into traction at the wheel motor.

But that can be changed. For example, in the Southwest, they have something called the Hoover Dam that provides most of the power for Arizona and Nevada. Up in the Western New York area, they use water power as well with the Niagara River. And out on Long Island, they just started a project to build a number of large wind mills, which they say will provide all of Long Island with polution-free power. There are many ways to do it without burning fossil fuels. The problem is that pressure must be put on the politicians to initiate this change. Most of them receive large campaign contributions from the oil companies, and they are not about to give that up to support a bill that will most likely get voted down anyway. But if they think they will lose many votes over an issue, they will go against their backers in order to keep their elected offices.

JCL, very good point but I think the view is that the energy hydrogen produces far exceed the direct production of electricity. While I'm huge on E85 fuels, I would be even bigger on using a Hydrogen fuel if you could get the infrastructure put in. Now if your company made 10Billion in a quarter, you should have some funds to invest in this (Exxon/Mobile).


Off Topic:
I was watching an interesting show on the Discovery Channel yesterday. Did you know that the entire US could be powered by a solar panel system of a few square miles?

I think it is the second law of thermodynamics that refutes that. The overhead will be 30-40%, just in the primary conversion to hydrogen, not counting storage, distribution, etc. That is to say, to get enough hydrogen to supply 1000 kwh of power will take 1300 kwh of electricity, or of natural gas (very rough figures). There is always an overhead, otherwise we could have perpetual motion.

So, it doesn't make any sense to use natural gas to produce it as we do today, we would have to come up with many new nuclear plants, or enough wind turbines to cover a couple of midwestern states, or enough solar cells to cover a chunk of Africa. Also, we will need pure water at the point of production, in order to use electrolysis. Sounds a little ways off to me.

It isn't at all hopeless, but I am just pointing out that the dream of a hydrogen economy makes a better political speech than it does a business proposition.

BP and Edison Mission Group (EMG), a subsidiary of Edison International, today announced that they are planning a new $1 billion hydrogen-fueled power plant in California that would generate clean electricity with minimal carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.
The first-of-its-kind plant would be located alongside BP's Carson refinery, about 20 miles south of Los Angeles, and would be capable of producing 500 megawatts (MW) of low-carbon generation, enough power to serve 325,000 Southern California homes.

BP and EMG hope to complete detailed engineering and commercial studies in 2006, finalize project investment decisions in 2008 and bring the new power plant online by 2011.

Potential project benefits include:

Providing 500MW of new clean generating capacity for Southern California at a time when state agencies are predicting possible power supply shortages during the coming years
Eliminating four million tons of CO2 per year from the atmosphere by sequestering it underground
Enabling additional production from existing California oil fields, producing previously unrecoverable oil reserves by injecting the CO2 into oil reservoirs, where the CO2 would be permanently stored
Boosting the Southern California economy with 1,000 construction jobs and 150 permanent operational positions
Increasing the diversity and supply of US indigenous fuels available to generate electricity.
Preserving limited fresh water sources by using recycled and treated city waste water for plant needs
The proposed Carson project would combine a number of existing industrial processes to provide a new option for generating electricity without significant CO2 emissions. Petroleum coke produced at California refineries would first be converted to hydrogen and CO2 gases and around 90 percent of the CO2 captured and separated.

The hydrogen gas stream would be used to fuel a gas turbine to generate electricity. The captured CO2 would be transported by pipeline to an oilfield and injected into reservoir rock formations thousands of feet underground, both stimulating additional oil production and permanently trapping the CO2.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, speaking at today's project announcement in Carson, attended by BP, EMG and state and city officials, said: "I want to thank you for choosing California. This will be the first plant of its kind in the whole country and I think it is a perfect fit for our state. With our Strategic Growth Plan, a commitment to Air Quality, and innovative projects like this Hydrogen Plant, I know we can have clear skies, improve our quality of life and build a stronger, more vibrant economy for California."

Ross Pillari, president of BP America, said: "Wide-scale deployment of technology such as hydrogen power can make a significant contribution towards the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions needed worldwide. California is a natural location for this project. Both the state and federal government have challenged businesses to take a leadership role in tackling carbon dioxide emissions. With this project, we expect to make a meaningful contribution to those goals."

"The Carson project has the potential to provide new, environmentally sound electricity generation at a time when California's growing economy needs additional power supplies," said John Bryson, chairman of EMG parent company Edison International.

Final project investment decisions will follow further study by the partners and review by the California Energy Commission and the South Coast Air Quality Management District. BP and EMG are beginning project discussions with state and federal government agencies and local stakeholders and are exploring options for selling the electricity the plant would generate. BP is in discussions with Occidental Petroleum to develop options for sequestering the CO2 in Occidental's California oilfields.

The costs of hydrogen power are higher than those of traditional power plant fuels. As a result, the project will depend, in part, on incentives provided in the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 for advanced gasification technologies. In addition, continued progress on the California Public Utilities Commission's electricity "resource adequacy" procurement policies will encourage this first-of-its-kind facility.


Also

Hydrogen Power
Peterhead Hydrogen Power Project

BP's initial hydrogen power project at Peterhead, Scotland, is the world's first industrial-scale hydrogen power project and is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) and safely storing it permanently.

The project will bring together for the first time in a single integrated scheme a number of technologies already operating at scale around the world.

The plant will convert natural gas from North Sea fields into hydrogen, a clean-burning gas, and CO2. The hydrogen gas will be used to fuel a 350 mw power station while 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year will be transported offshore and stored in deep underground oil reservoirs where it will be used to enhance oil production.

When completed, the plant will be the largest hydrogen-fired power generation facility in the world, producing 350 mw of low carbon electricity, enough to power a quarter of a million homes in a city the size of Glasgow.


At the heart of BP's first decarbonised fuels project is a natural gas reformer and carbon capture facility where natural gas is transformed into hydrogen and carbon dioxide (CO2). The facility will capture 1.2 million tones of CO2 while a converted power plant will use the hydrogen as a fuel to generate 350 mw of electricity.

Project Overview:

First industrial scale installation of an integrated hydrogen power system.
Planned for Peterhead in North East Scotland.
Will take natural gas from North Sea fields and convert it to hydrogen and CO2.
Hydrogen will then be used as fuel in Scottish & Southern Energy's Peterhead power station, generating 350 mw of low carbon electricity enough to power a quarter of a million homes in the UK in a city the size of Glasgow.
1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year will be transported by pipeline and injected for enhanced oil recovery and permanent geological storage in the BP-operated Miller field.
Injecting the CO2 into the Miller field reservoir more than 4 kilometers under the seabed will extend the life of the field by about 15-20 years and enable production of an additional 40 million barrels of oil.
The project's reformer plant will convert up to 70 million cubic feet of natural gas per day into CO2 and hydrogen.
The project would require total capital investment of about $600 million.
Timeline

Initial engineering feasibility studies have been completed
Front-end engineering and design is now underway and targeted for completion in the second half of 2006
After the project is sanctioned, construction will require 36 months
Location

Onshore: The project's hydrogen reformer and power station will be located at Scottish & Southern Energy's Peterhead power station in Aberdeenshire.
Offshore: The project will transport CO2 via existing pipelines to the Miller field, located 240 kilometers offshore.
Impact and Significance
Miller Field

The Miller field is currently due to cease production in 2006/7 but the injection of CO2 into the reservoir could increase the amount of oil extracted from the field, potentially allowing the production of up to 40 million additional barrels of oil and extending the life of the field by 15 to 20 years.
Milestones

When completed, the project will set several milestones for the industry and the UK, including:

Largest CO2 enhanced oil recovery project in the North Sea, 40 million barrels.
First CO2 pipeline in the North Sea.
First CO2 storage in an offshore oil reservoir.
Largest hydrogen-fired power generation facility in the world.
Economic Impact

The project has the potential to create new economic development opportunities in North East Scotland by expanding the region's traditional strengths in the offshore oil and gas industry to now include carbon capture and storage technology products and services.
About 200 construction jobs may be created during construction of the onshore facilities.
About 100 permanent jobs may be created at the enlarged operation at the Peterhead Power Station.
Partners

BP
Scottish & Southern Energy
Shell
ConocoPhillips

and

To address the challenges associated with developing a ’Hydrogen Economy’, BP is providing the infrastructure for many of the world’s hydrogen demonstration projects.
These projects bring together the key partners in a hydrogen future: energy companies, auto-companies, and governments.

Enlarge image d

Barcelona, Spain: BP provides the refuelling infrastructure for three hydrogen fuel cell powered public buses.

Enlarge image d

Hamburg, Germany: In conjunction with partners, BP provides the refuelling infrastructure for three hydrogen fuel cell powered public buses.
Stuttgart, Germany: In conjunction with partners, BP provides the refuelling infrastructure for three hydrogen fuel cell powered public buses.

Enlarge image d

Porto, Portugal: BP provides the refuelling infrastructure for three hydrogen fuel cell powered public buses.
Berlin, Germany: BP develops a public refuelling station combining a range of alternative fuels.
Perth, Australia: BP provides the refuelling infrastructure for three hydrogen fuel cell powered public buses.
London, United Kingdom: BP provides the refuelling infrastructure for three hydrogen fuel cell powered public buses.

Enlarge image d

Munich, Germany: BP’s Aral subsidiary provides the infrastructure to fuel airside vehicles at Munich airport.
Singapore: BP provides the refuelling infrastructure to fuel hydrogen powered passenger cars.
Los Angeles, United States: In conjunction with partners, BP provides the refuelling infrastructure to fuel hydrogen powered passenger cars.

The Hoover Dam does not supply most of the power for NV and AZ. Both states use coal as their primary energy source. Arizona also operates the nation's largest nuclear plant, Palo Verde, equipped with 3 reactors. In reality, over 50% of the hydroelectric power generated by Hoover Dam comes to California (thank you very much).

Windfarms is strictly a supplemental source of power on a wide scale basis with some limited ability to power small localized areas. The biggest issue with turbines is that they do not generate on-demand power - they generate power only when the wind is blowing. As a result, energy created by the turbines must be stored in a grid energy storage facility in order to feed large urban areas. These storage facilities are very high tech, the CAP-X is huge, and there is a loss of energy during the storage process. Windfarms is one of many small scale solutions to the energy problem, but by itself, it will not change energy landscape. However it does change the physical landscape (as in creating a major eye sore).

Considering the Newport-Inglewood fault line passes through the corner of Carson, I wonder if Arnold found a way to move the fault line to another location?

As mentioned, the BP refinery is located in city of Carson, as are refineries for other oil companies. After Katrina, there was much discussion about So Cali's emergency response preparedness if the Big One hit. There is much speculation that the Big One may not be on the San Andreas fault, but on the Newport-Inglewood fault which is the second most active fault in California. The projections were that if this scenario took place, many of the casualties that would occur would not be the result of crumbling buildings, but instead the result of hazmat spills and resulting fumes, generated in the Carson/Compton/El Segundo area and blown across the L.A. Basin which is essentially a trap surrounded by mountains.

I hope that the environmental impact assessment of this new hydrogen plant is done right. I love the idea, but I wonder if oil company bucks are fueling this project (play on words unintended).

asawadude, awesome chart :)

Thanks for the correction.


The proposed project for Long Island is supposed to produce enough power for the entire island. If you've ever been to Long Island, then you would know it is always windy there. :rofl:

So we take natural gas, and consume something like 30% of it to produce hydrogen (in terms of energy value). The conversion produces a lot of waste C02. We repeatedly call the product clean hydrogen, with no CO2 emissions when used as a fuel (which it is, technically) Then we put the waste C02 underground, stored forever where it won't have a chance of getting out into the atmosphere, even though there is a fault line there (OK, the underground storage could be some distance away, but the pipeline would go across the fault line).

The above process is described by the promoter as being expensive, and relying on government grants/tax breaks to go ahead.

Best part of all, the waste C02 is injected into older oil fields, and boosts production. Why wouldn't the oil company bucks be motivated?

Not trying to be cynical here, the economics may turn out to be wonderful, but it sounds an awful lot like a press release designed to position an oil company as an energy company (which isn't altogether a bad thing, IMO).

I think they would be more intellectually honest to say that since we/they are going to burn the natural gas anyway, the 30% overhead for conversion is a good investment in their increased future oilfield production, as long as tax breaks cover the additional costs for the hydrogen production. If the project stands up to that scrutiny, great.

I just think that if the hydrogen economy comes along, it will be fueled by nuclear, solar, and wind, and not by natural gas.