Hydrogen Production
A future exploitation of clean, renewable energy is an achievable goal as shown below:
Manufacturing Hydrogen For Our Clean Energy Future
by Joseph David Cohen
Mass. PE 30246
Retired GE Aircraft Engines
26 Cornell Road
Danvers, MA 01923-2563
jdc2485@aol.com
(978) 204-5332
and by Fred A. Noyes
Retired Journalist
Old Turnpike Rd.
Epsom, NH 03234
fanoyes@juno.com
(603) 736-9730
Hydrogen will eventually be the fuel of the future. It can replace all the fossil fuels (coal, petroleum, and natural gas) for heat, surface and some types of air transportation, as well as local power production. Its only significant combustion product will be clean, harmless water vapor which eventually drops back to the earth’s surface as rainfall. Most harmful pollutants such as smoke and carbon monoxide, toxic gas products that lead to smog and acid rain, and finally persistent greenhouse gases will disappear from the burning process entirely.
As long as there is carbon in the fuel we burn, carbon dioxide (CO2) is produced in the exhaust. Removing the CO2 gas from the exhaust stacks is a monumental task, and is neither mechanically nor economically practical.
The numbers are quite simple.
Coal produces about 300 lbs. of CO2 per million BTUs of thermal energy consumed.
Fuel Oil produces about 175 lbs. of CO2 per million BTUs of thermal energy consumed.
Natural Gas produces about 130 lbs. of CO2 per million BTUs of thermal energy consumed.
Hydrogen produces no CO2, few pollutants, and no waste. A global switch to hydrogen can help eliminate health problems due to poor air quality. It will reduce or stop acid poisoning of our lakes. It will help slow the phenomenon of global warming. Lastly, it will forever end dependence on foreign crude oil supplies.
Construction of the infrastructure needed for our hydrogen based future will produce lifelong jobs for a huge portion of the world’s population.
Hydrogen is readily available. It comes from a renewable and inexhaustible source as a component of water (H2O). Obtaining it is relatively safe and easy. The most straightforward and environmentally friendly method of breaking water into its components of hydrogen and oxygen is by passing an electric current through the liquid. In other words, it requires a source of electrical energy.
Hydrogen cannot be a practical fuel, if fossil fuel feed stock is needed as a hydrogen source or fossil fuel combustion is required to produce the electrical energy necessary to release the hydrogen. Therefore, the energy sources for future hydrogen production will have to come from clean, and endlessly renewable energy resources. A common renewable source is from hydroelectric power generated from rivers with large dams. We, however, do not have enough such resources for large scale hydrogen production. Other fossil fuel free energy could possibly come from wind, solar, ocean wave and tidal sources. Even nuclear and some day possibly thermonuclear sources could be considered. All of these should be planned and implemented only when ecological, safety, and economic considerations make sense.
Another very important possibility will be from naturally available geothermal energy. Heat removed from deep in the ground near thermally active volcanic regions should be exploited. It can be used to produce high pressure, superheated steam. The steam will then drive the turbines and generators needed to produce enormous amounts of electrical energy. That electricity can be fed into the national grid, or, running 24 hours a day, can be used to manufacture hydrogen.
Interestingly, the U.S. has within its borders, the world’s largest known geothermal hot spot. It is situated beneath Yellowstone National Park. The park itself is atop of the caldera of the largest super volcano that has ever been discovered anywhere on earth. This huge volcano has been relatively dormant for about 70,000 years, but is still quite thermally active, and in fact the local ground surface is measurably swelling above a huge magma chamber. The surface of the ground has been measured as having risen in height about 750 millimeters (30 inches) over a 50 year period. This surface motion is a possible indication that it will break out and erupt in some distant (or not so distant) future. There is reliable geological evidence to show that the Yellowstone volcano has erupted explosively three times in the distant past at intervals of 600,000 to 800,000 years. Past Yellowstone explosive eruptions are known to have produced a devastating drop of about 5 degrees Celsius in the average climatic temperature on a worldwide scale. A similar such eruption in the future would be predicted to induce a massive global weather catastrophe.
Geologists have traced the history of Yellowstone back nearly 12 million years and they claim that the three large explosive eruptions have occurred at Yellowstone over a 2.1 million year period with a recurrence interval of about 600,000 to 800,000 years. In a report by the US Geological Survey dealing with Yellowstone’s volcanic history, USGS scientists say that about 30 different lava flows have erupted after the most recent caldera formation (a crater with a diameter many times that of the volcano vent formed by collapse of the central part of the volcano or by explosions of extraordinary violence). The most recent eruption was about 70,000 years ago. “Volcanic activity began in the Yellowstone National Park region before about 2 million years ago.” that report says. Molten rock (magma) rising from deep within the earth produced three cataclysmic eruptions more powerful than any in the world’s recorded history.“Three caldera-forming eruptions, respectively, were about 2,500, 280, and 1,500 times larger than the May 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington State. Together, the three catastrophic eruptions expelled enough ash and lava to fill the Grand Canyon. Since the most recent giant caldera forming eruption, 640,000 years ago, at least 30 smaller but still destructive volcanic eruptions have occurred at Yellowstone.” the USGS report stated.
At the time of the last large eruption, humans had not yet moved into the American continent. However, the resulting weather effects from ash, dust, and acidic aerosols are known to have reached around the world. It would have affected life and the availability of food everywhere.
If the Yellowstone region was exploited for geothermal energy, we might be able to relieve the building pressure, delay or eliminate the onset of a future eruption, and carry away a huge supply of endlessly available thermal energy. This could hopefully be done without excavating or ruining the park. Such enormous energy resources could hold the key for a global switch to hydrogen. It could possibly produce enough electrical energy to provide the US with total energy independence.
We can look forward to the day when we drive our clean, silent, fuel cell powered car to the neighborhood hydrogen station, and say fill-er-up to the attendant. The hydrogen charge might be delivered in 5 minutes. That capability is a vision which requires a vast new infrastructure, and the collective will to do it.
This is a proposal to tap into and exploit the vast amount of accumulating heat energy beneath Yellowstone National Park and to generate electricity with it for the production of hydrogen. We believe that this Yellowstone proposal alone could be one of our greatest weapons against foreign political instability, because it could provide enough hydrogen to help end our dependence on foreign crude oil supplies. To advance this proposal to a reality, it will be necessary for Congress and the President to modify existing laws that now prohibit use of the park for such activity.
“The extensive thermal features of Yellowstone National Park are fueled by heat from a large magma chamber beneath the caldera that in turn is fed from a magma reservoir in the Earth’s deep interior that collectively forms a hot spot, a significant feature in plate tectonics theory.” according to Robert B. Smith, University of Utah Scientist. “In the past few decades, we’ve measured the ground across the youngest caldera rise nearly three feet and fall by a foot. This active deformation was accompanied by thousands of small earthquakes marking the Park as a living geologic system.” as stated by Professor Smith.
The attraction to this proposal is that we know how to do it with conventional equipment. There are no mysteries. We can plan it with complete confidence. We don’t need to dam rivers or ocean bays. We don’t need to remove anything. We merely sink water circulation pipes very deep into the ground and build a thermal power plant on the surface. There is neither air pollution nor nuclear waste. Nature supplies free thermal energy forever.
The following fifteen-point outline demonstrates the advantages of a geothermal system:
1. You don’t need fuel to burn.
2. You needn’t have to build a dam with its inherent disturbance of the ecosystem.
3. You don’t need fissile nuclear fuels, nor waste management.
4. There are neither waste products, nor atmospheric pollution of any kind.
5. It is totally steady: 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
6. It uses the well-known and commonly used Rankine cycle turbine power system. Most such systems expand high pressure steam.
7. No technical breakthroughs are required. We can build such systems today.
8. The electrical power that is generated can be used for anything, but it can also be employed for the continuous production of hydrogen by water electrolysis.
9. Within our national borders lies the largest known geothermal hot spot in the world. It is under Yellowstone National Park. The government already owns and maintains the property.
10. Geothermal power plants only minimally affect the land they’re built upon.
11. The power plants may not necessarily need to be built within the park itself. They could possibly be situated around the park’s nearly 200 mile perimeter.
12. There is enough available local water in the Yellowstone region to feed electrolysis cells for hydrogen manufacture.
13. Construction costs are likely to be reasonable. Less capital equipment is needed for geothermal power producing systems. There is no fuel to be delivered, stored, managed, or burned. There are no furnaces. There is no fuel waste to be removed such as ash or nuclear waste. There are no exhaust stacks. There are no exhaust scrubbers.
14. We will never produce acid rain, nor smog from these systems.
15. There are no accumulating greenhouse gases expelled from any exhaust stack.
This is God’s gift to us. We would be fools not to use it.
Why not Yellowstone?
Interesting question: What happens to the culturally and economically important tourism when Old Faithful and the other geysers may no longer erupt?
That is a question that requires a set of firm priorities.
While we personally doubt that man can make that big a dent on the thermal potential of a magma chamber that covers 2000-2500 square miles of the earth's surface; that is just an opinion.
If it actually came down to Old Faithful vs. a clean, smog free, smoke free, and greenhouse gas free atmosphere, I'm afraid that Old Faithful would have to go. The economics would favor that also by many billions of dollars annually vs. the relative drop in the bucket now taken from the park operation.
In our opinion, the potential future power output of the Yellowstone hot spot is somewhere in the 25-50 GW ballpark, limited only by the availability of surface water for hydrogen manufacture and cooling. This could possibly be done by properly spacing the power plants around Yellowstone's available 200 mile perimeter.
That level of output could produce 0.85-1.7 million pounds of hydrogen per hour. The predicted hydrogen flow would then replace the thermal energy equivalent of 10-20 million gallons of gasoline per day, or double that if one compares hydrogen fuel cell efficiencies to that of available internal combustion engines (typically 2:1).
It is not too much of a stretch to predict something on the order of 10 billion gallons of gasoline saved per year.
At about 5 pounds of carbon per gallon of gasoline, this transforms to approximately 90 million tons of CO2 eliminated annually from exhaust emissions.
That is a huge start on energy independence, and a clean future! About 1 Terawatt of renewable energy is needed to free us completely from petroleum dependency.
Also Yellowstone isn't the only hot spot in the US or in the world. It is simply the biggest known.
We haven't yet talked about the cash flow and cost associated with a Yellowstone type project and hydrogen or how it would compare to gasoline at today's prices. Somebody is bound to ask the question of dollars. Accountants and auditors often can't think any other way.
Suggesting that the Yellowstone output could be in the range of 25 - 50 GW (gigawatts meaning billion watts), we can say it another way. One hour of operation produces 25 to 50 million kilowatt hours of electrical energy output. The government's own figures place the cost of geothermally produced electricity at 4.5 to 7 cents per kilowatt hour at today's dollar values. This pays back all investment costs in a very few years. Using the higher figure of 7 cents ($0.07), we obtain $1.75 million to $3.50 million per hour's worth of electrical energy. This we know will produce a range of 0.85 million to 1.7 million pounds of hydrogen per hour respectively from the facilities. That production rate corresponds to about $2.00 per pound of hydrogen before shipment. That is the energy equivalent of about $4.00 per gallon of equivalent gasoline.
This would be marked up to the consumer depending on the cost of distribution. Currently gasoline adds up to one dollar per gallon in cost and taxes from the crude oil value to the consumer. So we might expect the possibility of $5.00 per gallon of equivalent gasoline or equivalently about $2.50 per pound of hydrogen.
While this may sound expensive, it is not outrageous. If one considers that fuel cells are more than twice as efficient as today's automobile engines, we see our cost per mile of car operation as increasing by only about 50%. It is as if we were operating today's cars with $3.00 per gallon of gasoline in place of the $2.00 that we pay right now.
If we were to use the lower figure of 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour, the projected mileage costs come out similar to today's operating costs. The learning curve might actually help this result to be realized.
If we consider the huge cost increases expected with gasoline as petroleum becomes very scarce by mid century, we can be reasonably confident that we can succeed in switching to a hydrogen economy before the world suffers an economic disaster.
Not considered here is the plethora of economic benefits of the huge number of jobs created building the hydrogen infrastructure, and the economic multiplier effect of those jobs on the world’s economy.
In case the reader hasn’t already figured this out, the annual output value of Yellowstone in dollars could be in the $10 billion to $30 billion range provided the power estimate range of 25 to 50 GW and price estimate range of 4.5 cents to 7 cents per kilowatt hour are correct. This idea can be extended to all the world’s volcanic regions.
For geothermal power information, go to the following web site:
http://geothermal.marin.org/GEOpresentation/
Weaning Ourselves Off Of Natural Petroleum, a Must For Human Survival
by J D Cohen
retired Professional Engineer
Massachusetts 30246
26 Cornell Rd.
Danvers, MA 01923
978 204-5332
jdc2485@aol.com
Total world oil production has already peaked and has been level to falling off slightly. World per capita oil production has been falling for a few years. That is due to rising world population.
China has become a big petroleum consumer since their love affair with cars which are replacing their traditional bicycles. So world gasoline demand (and also world wide atmospheric pollution) is increasing significantly.
Experts say that readily available natural petroleum will be exhausted in about 30 years from now. Gasoline prices will be skyrocketing in the next few years, starting now.
The US must open up their oil shale reserves to produce synthetic crude oil. We have a 250 year supply for ourselves. Also, liquefaction of coal can be started for production of coal derived synthetic crude oil. The US has less than a 250 year supply.
We must move into a hydrogen society as swiftly as possible. The hydrogen must be derived electrolytically from clean renewable infinite energy sources, such as wind or geothermal power. The US has a potential abundance of both in the lower 48 western states, in Alaska, and on the main island of Hawaii. Hydrogen will solve the energy supply problem and the atmospheric pollution and green house gas problem that leads to global warming.
Both energy source technologies are low risk, state of the art processes. That is a 25 to 50 year effort, and will be just in time for us. By 2050, a world population of 9 billion is predicted to begin falling to about 3 - 4 billion by 2100. The loss of 5 - 6 billion will be mostly by starvation and disease. Lack of energy to produce food will be the killer problem unless we get started building the hydrogen society soon.
Lack of foresight and planning by short sighted politicians is our biggest problem at present.
By 2050, conventional petroleum production will fall by about 50-60% or more from its current peak. It must be replaced by alternative fuels, such as syncrude and hydrogen.
Is a catastrophic decline in population inevitable? If so, it will be a population loss which will exceed the bubonic plague epidemic and all the war losses of the 20th century put together.
The End of Industrial Expansion and Population Growth
by JD Cohen retired GE Aircraft Engines
Our industrial civilization began about 200 years ago. It is marked by a period of rapid growth, and was made possible by the widespread use of fossil energy. Fossil energy comes from the combustion of coal, petroleum and natural gas or products derived from those resources.
For the first time in history, mankind could do work on a scale far beyond his own physical capability. The manufacture of capital goods, production of food, lighting, rapid transportation, massive construction, and means of mass communication all became possible. This 200 year period is often referred to as the “Industrial Revolution”, and was marked by the rapid consumption of fossil energy.
During that 200 year period, an awesome growth in world population has occurred. In 1800, the world population was about 900 million. By the end of 2000, it had grown to over 6 billion, an astonishing growth ratio of about 6.7, all in 200 years. Nothing like that had ever happened in human history. (Written history began 5000 years ago in Mesopotamia.) Every living human being places a demand on available energy to obtain the resources necessary to sustain life. That means we are using up known fossil energy resources at a frightening rate, and can forecast a time in 3 to 4 decades when we will be exhausting those resources.
Along with population growth, we have experienced industrial production growth to provide food, services and capital goods for the ever expanding population. This has the effect of creating rising profits as well as consuming more energy. Does this mean we are all becoming more prosperous? Unfortunately the short term answer may become no, and the long term answer may be very bleak indeed.
In 1972, an original study was done called: “The Limits to Growth” by Donella and Dennis Meadows, Jorgen Randers, and William Behrens. It was a very careful study using the most up to date population and resource figures and forecasts. It also made use of an MIT Systems Dynamics model which studies the interactions and dynamic behavior of complex economic systems.
Here is their key conclusion.
QUOTE: “If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years*. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.” UNQUOTE
* Written in 1972, that suggests the middle of the 21st century will become the time of crisis and economic chaos.
There is little question that the primary depleted resources will be the fossil fuels, particularly petroleum and natural gas. Loss of those energy sources will lead to widespread food shortages and delivery of medical services. Population loss will follow and is predicted to become a dieoff rate of about 100 million per year starting around 2050 and continuing past 2100.
By 2050, world population will peak at 8-9 billion, while per capita petroleum production will have fallen by 50-60%. With greater demand from emerging countries, widespread energy shortages will develop, not to mention a much higher price for our traditional energy sources.
The only long term solution to this forecast of economic and human catastrophe is to begin developing renewable energy sources now, and to bring an end to world population growth.
Conversion of renewable energy to electrolytic hydrogen (from water) becomes the primary energy solution for fueling our transportation systems and agricultural machinery.
Renewable clean energy comes from hydroelectric, wind turbine, geothermal, and solar energy sources. Cost and availability will determine the mix of sources that we need. To replace the current US consumption of 19 million barrels of petroleum per day, we will need about 2 trillion watts of renewable power facilities to be available and online by mid century.
Human Population, Technology and Energy:
a Synergistic Relationship
by J. D. Cohen
The dawn of writing and written history, the beginning of the use of money, and the start of the copper age all began about 5000 years ago. Using our traditional or Common Era calendar, that corresponds to 3000 BCE (Before the Common Era). At 3000 BCE, the entire human population of the world was about 14 million according to some historical estimates. After the final transition from the neolithic period through the start of the iron age (4000 BCE through 1000 BCE), world human population doubled roughly every thousand years. At 1000 BCE, world population stood at about 50 million.
The gathering of food, commerce and transportation, and the building or manufacturing of the useful products and monuments of civilization was revolutionized by the existence of metal tools. However, it all depended on human or animal muscle power for execution. For example, ships, roads, buildings, clothing, weapons and other artifacts were basically hand made and required muscle power to use or operate.
The shipping of goods or people from one place to another, whether by sea or overland was a brutally long, tedious and dangerous process that could often take several years to complete with a significant loss of lives in the process.
1000 BCE through the year 1000 CE marks a period of history in which large empires dominated and influenced world history. The empires that ruled Persia, Macedonia, China, Rome, and Byzantium, etc. connected large parts of the world together. The building of better ships and roads improved the accessibility of people, food, and other goods to and from remote areas. During that 2000 year period, world population increased from 50 million to about 250 million. This is about 12% over a factor of 2 every 1000 years. It is only a slight increase in percentage rate of growth over the previous 3 millennia. Most energy was still applied by muscle power.
Between 1000 and 1800, a sudden jump in population growth occurred. World population increased from 250 million to about 900 million. a factor of nearly 4 when corrected to a 1000 year period. Man was beginning to find energy sources from the wind on sailing craft and from chemical propellants (gunpowder) for firearms.
However, that is still quite a small increase when compared to the post 1800 period (which is the beginning of the industrial revolution) to the present day. In the year 2000, world population stood at about 6 billion. That is 6.7 times as many as there were in 1800 or a factor of nearly 13500 per thousand years. (Yes indeed, 13500 is 6.7 multiplied by itself 4 times = 6.7 to the 5th power.) This number is absolutely frightening and will never happen because of limited available energy, production and land resources.
The industrial revolution is characterized by the use of thermal energy from the combustion of fossil fuel. Initially, mankind was burning wood, but that proved to be extremely limited. Coal, oil, and natural gas became the source of most of our industrial energy along with a small but significant contribution of hydro and nuclear power.
Everything we buy at a store, namely food and all manufactured products are highly energy intensive. About 90% of that energy comes from burning fossil fuel. Without that energy, a significant portion of the world’s population will go without food, transportation, medical supplies and the means to obtain it. This large scale use of fossil energy coincides with the huge rate of increase in population. There is clearly a cause and effect relationship or synergy between the two.
Without a change in birth rates to a zero growth or static world population, the world is headed toward a human economic catastrophe. Without a stable replacement of petroleum, our resources will stagnate at a time when natural petroleum sources dry up. This is predicted to be around 2050, a time when my grandchildren will be at middle age.
It has been forecast that world population will peak at that time at around 9 billion, then will drop to 4-5 billion by 2100, a loss or die out of 100 million per year. (Note that In the year 500 BCE, the whole world had a human population of 100 million.) I am glad that I won’t be here to see it, but I am equally sad for my grandchildren who will witness it. 2050 is only 46 years from now. We have little time left to fix it.
Two things must happen by 2050. Human reproduction must balance at a replacement only rate to hold world population at non growth levels.
A stable and infinitely available substitute for petroleum derived energy must be found and implemented. A world wide switch to hydrogen manufactured from clean energy sources is the only known permanent solution for the future.
Historic world population data can be obtained at the following web site:
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html
Fuel Cells, the Power Source of Your Future
by Dave Cohen
What is a fuel cell? It is a device that continuously processes certain types of fuel with oxygen (or air), converting the fuel’s thermal energy content directly into electrical power. There is no combustion process, neither internal nor external.
The device was invented in the 1830s by a British lawyer and physicist, Sir William Robert Grove, who stumbled onto the phenomenon of the fuel cell by accident.
He found that when water is dissociated into its elements of hydrogen and oxygen by some means requiring an electrical energy input, the hydrogen and oxygen begin to recombine producing a reverse flow of electrical energy in the power circuit after the input power source is disconnected. In other words, the chemical reaction is nearly reversible except for electrical resistance losses.
Fuel cells bypass the need for an internal combustion engine or steam engine to drive a magnetic generator. Fuel simply goes into the fuel cell, and electricity comes out along with some moisture.
There was little interest in the fuel cell for more than a century. It was simply a laboratory curiosity. However, after World War 2, it was looked upon as being a practical power source for the orbiting vehicles of the space program. Fuel cells now supply very reliable power for the space shuttle.
Fuel cells are 2 - 3 times more fuel efficient than an internal combustion engine, preserving a much higher percentage of the original fuel’s chemical energy as usable power.
Hydrogen was and still is the fuel of choice for fuel cells. This was one reason that little practical interest in fuel cells existed for so many years. Hydrogen was not readily available at the local gas station nor at a hardware store.
Other fuels such as natural gas, hydrazine and methanol have been shown to work, but they are all impractical for a number of reasons. The latter two are highly toxic and difficult to produce on an energy efficient scale. The manufacturing processes for both substances waste far more energy and valuable resources than they can give back. They can also be quite dangerous to handle, especially the hydrazine which is explosive. In addition, both substances require the intermediate production of hydrogen to build their molecular structure. It is therefore far more practical to use the hydrogen directly. Reformed natural gas is wasteful of a valuable and non-renewable resource.
Fuel cells will appear in various sizes to provide power for automobiles, trucks, agricultural machines, buses, railway locomotives, surface ships, and submarines. In fact, a new class of submarine developed in Germany by Howaldtswerke Deutsche-Werft features air-independent propulsion based on the hydrogen fuel cell.
Only aircraft will be unable to use fuel cells because of weight and power density factors.
Fuel cells can also be used in stationary power systems for emergency power and power for remotely located structures such as homes, commercial buildings or factories. In other words, they will supply electricity on demand.
All that will be necessary is the ability to obtain hydrogen as easily as we obtain petroleum at present. This means that a hydrogen manufacturing and distribution infrastructure is required. The hydrogen will be manufactured from water with the use of renewable clean energy. After it is used, it turns back into water so it will be infinitely available and will never disappear as petroleum inevitably will in a few short years.
Is hydrogen difficult to make? No, it is so easy that you can do it in your garage. All that is needed is water, a source of direct current electricity, and an electrolyte to lower the electrical resistance of the water. This process can be easily scaled up for massive production volumes. It can be manufactured at any pressure by pre loading the electrolysis cell to the desired distribution pressure.
Energy for making hydrogen must be provided from clean, renewable energy sources. Those include hydroelectric energy, wind turbine energy, geothermal heat, or solar radiation. Correct choices will be made on the basis of availability, practicality, and cost.
Currently, hydroelectric power has little availability. Our resources are close to being fully committed.
Solar power is currently very expensive, however solar hydrogen development progress has been reported in Australia.
Wind turbine power and geothermal power are available at 7 cents per kilowatt-hour or less, and are thus the most logical choices at this time. As their availability and use increases, unit cost will decrease.
Building a New Energy Infrastructure
by Dave Cohen
The task of building a new infrastructure in our society is dauntingly time consuming. Our nation and the world will soon be faced with the task of switching our most commonly distributed energy carrier from refined petroleum to hydrogen.
There are no technological impediments to accomplishing this. In fact, the manufacturing, distribution and use of hydrogen is amazingly simple and safe. We have been doing it on a small scale for years. The goal that faces our industrial civilization is to make hydrogen available at every fueling station, as we currently do with gasoline, kerosene and diesel or fuel oil. That task requires new facilities and infrastructure. It will also create many types of new jobs.
How do we create a new infrastructure? How long does it take?
I can only answer that question by referring to a past example. The example that I use here is the history of the rural electrification* of the state of Texas. The Emergency Relief Act of 1935 gave President Franklin Delano Roosevelt the authority he needed for a rural-electrification program. On May 11 of that year he started the Rural Electrification Administration as a depression relief agency similar to the Work Projects Administration (WPA). In 1935, only 10 per cent of the nation’s farms had electricity. In Texas, with sparse population and vast spaces, the figure was only 2.3 percent. By January 1, 1965, Rural Electrification Administration borrowers and investor-owned utilities had more than reversed the statistics on rural electrification. Instead of only 2 percent of Texas farms with electricity, there were only 2 percent without electricity.
*Recommended citation:
"RURAL ELECTRIFICATION." The Handbook of Texas Online. <http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/RR/dpr1.html>
In other words, 96 per cent of rural Texas was electrified in 30 years. Think about that. We are talking about wiring up the country side, installing the generating capacity, placing transformers and installing electric meters. All of this was existing technology. 30 years was simply the time required to do it.
30 years is certainly a reasonable first estimate for creating a hydrogen society. It may actually take longer because many new, clean, and endlessly renewable energy sources are required, such as wind and geothermal heat. These are required to produce the hydrogen on a huge production scale by electrolysis of water. However, it is a working 30 years. We must start building it now, if we expect to be 100% on line 30 or more years from now.
30 years from now, combined natural petroleum and natural gas production is expected to drop by about 40% from today’s peak on a worldwide per capita basis. Without a fully functioning hydrogen society to take up the slack, a very serious economic catastrophe may become the inevitable consequence of our lack of action in 2004. 10 years later will find per capita petroleum and natural gas production down by 50% and the initiation of a projected world human population die off.
Time is running out on us. We must start fixing this problem now. I’m talking about action, not research. Research is great, but it doesn’t get us there.
