GAS-L: The "Hydrogen Economy": Bleak or Bright?

[JBenemann@aol.com]

Dear Tom:

I agree, methanol should be a good fuel, but from wasted, flared natural gas 
where available in sufficient amounts, not from biomass, I think we both 
agree on that.  

Re. H2, I think we have a similar situation - biomass gasification may not be 
a good approach to produce H2, due to the clean-up, etc., required.  
Fermentations maybe a tad better, maybe.  (I should state I work on H2 
fermentations, so I may be biased).  

But then the question becomes what to do with the H2.  After 30 years doing 
R&D in biological H2 production, I have yet to see anyone stating a clear 
path to practical development.  Having low cost (say $400 /kWe) fuel cells, 
as promised by the industry, would, maybe,be helpful, but that still requires 
some 90 to 99% cost reduction (depending on whose quote you believe).  
Anyway, IC engines do reasonably well and I see no real arguments in favor 
fuel cells for biomass applications.  

Actually, there may be a good use for biomass gasification in a close-coupled 
moded for co-firing in coal (and maybe oil) power plants to provide some H2 
to help reduce NOx emissions.  Has anyone looked at that?    

Re. H2 and cars, indeed this is a simple "greenwashing" excercise.  Actually, 
the key in the Scientific American article is the statement that H2 cars 
would preserve our "freedom of personal transportation".  Hydrogen cars are 
held up as the final solution to all pollution and justification to continue 
our wasteful and rapidly selfdefeating, personal car mode of transportation.  
H2 may cut down on local air pollution, but overall it seems to me to be 
rather marginal, to be charitable.  And unaffordable, to be realistic.   

This whole H2 car business was started a few years back by Shell in Europe, 
as a counter to the arguments by the Greens in Germany (in particular) who 
wanted to start moving away from the two plus cars in every garage model to a 
more public mode of transportation.  Which would be bad for oil companies, 
car companies, and all those benefiting from our current system.  So their 
embrace of H2 is understandable - it justifies the status quo and no danger 
of it ever becoming anything more than a Popular Mechanics /Scientific 
American cover story, and a (mostly government funded) R&D excercise.  
Indeed, the current long-long-term Dept. of Energy H2 car program replaced a 
much more serious and near-term high-efficiency car program, which was 
becoming dangerously too real to the oil and car companies.  So it was 
terminated.  

Perhaps others would have some additional/alternative perspecitves on this?

John

John R. Benemann, Ph.D.
3434 Tice Creek Dr. No.1
Walnut Creek, CA 94595
(925) 939 5864 Fax (925) 944 1205
Cell (925) 352 3352  jbenemann@aol.com

Gasification List Moderator:
Tom Reed, Biomass Energy Foundation,  tombreed@attbi.com Biomass =
Energy Foundation, www.woodgas.com
List-Post: <mailto:gasification@crest.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gasification-help@crest.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gasification-unsubscribe@crest.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gasification-subscribe@crest.org>
-
Gasification List Archives http://www.crest.org/discussion/gasification/200202/
Bioenergy 2002 http://www.bioenergy2002.org/
200 kWe CHP Discussion
http://crest.org/discussiongroups/resources/gasification/200kWCHP.html
Gasification Reference http://www.crest.org/articles/static/1/1011975339_7.html

>