Thread: Interesting e-mail I've received today "Fuel: The Mass Debate"

In addition to what John said.

Most of the extra cost is related to hydrotreating the diesel to remove sulphur, then dewatering (usually using salt).

In addition to the above, with the reduction in sulphur, lubricity has become a more critical issue. Also, the advent of higher and higher performance diesels means that diesel blends have needed improvement (more parrafins and olefins and fewer aromatics). This in turn has meant that more attention has been needed to avoid waxing problems in cold weather...

Originally Posted by Offender90

John,

When I read the first part of your sentence, I was expecting you'd pick me up on a few small things here and there... you're ripping my arguement apart!!! Lets see...



1. One doesn't need to know much about statistics to know that the above quoted statistical fact is.. well, useless (I'm sorry to say). Countries with high petroleum use tend to be developed countries, proper sanitation, clean water, abundant food, functioning health care system, it has it all. When compared to countries where the petroleum use is not as high,(i.e. third world countries that often lack clean water lat alone proper medical care) its a no brainer that they're gonna suffer higher morbidity and mortality rates. (this was probably covered under the "other factors"). So that's no arguement to support the theory pollution related health effects are negligable.

As for the comparison of health effects related to petroleum pollution Vs alcohol and tobacco, I strongly disagree. In alcohol and tobacco use, there is direct correlation between cause and effect. You smoke, you get lung cancer, you drink, you get liver sclerosis. The bloke next to you doesnt drink or smoke, and he's fine. Repeat that 10 times and you've got your proof.

The effects of air pollution are so much more widespread, they affect entire cities. A 22 year old man develops testicular cancer. A 5 year old kid's got asthma. A 42 year old woman gets a cold like infection every 3 months. A 31 year old man suffers chronic sinusitis. Why? Who knows. Yet every one of the above symptoms are related to various petroleum pollutants.

VOCs including BTEX compounds (benzene, tolulene, ethylbenzene and xylene), I,3-butadiene and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PACs) are all known carcinogens, benzene in concentrations as lilttle as 1 ppm.

Ozone impairs lung function, causes asthma, harms the immune system, causes fetal heart malfunctions. PM 2.5 causes asthma, respiratory ilnesses, stuns fetal development and is correlated to infant death. And so on. Point is, its not easy to attribute one of these to air polution, yet morbidity and mortality ARE disproportionate in cities with high air pollution (Mexico City, Bangkok, Jakarta, Los Angeles).

EPA in California conduct a lot of studies on the effects of air pollutants on health, and the results are... well, alarming. Strong correlation have been shown between morbidity and mortality rates and levels of air pollution, even on a daily basis. More about that below.



2. OK, I may stand corrected on the diesel production costs on account of outdated info. Comes from my father who was an oil refinary engineer up until about 17 years ago. Costs may have gone up with touger standards. certainly wasn't the case in his time.

3. As for particulate matter, as you probably know, its measured as large particles (10 microns or less (PM 10) ans small particles 2.5 microns or less (PM 2.5). While I will agree there isn't a large body of evidence to suggest that PM 10 is particularly harmful (soot from fires and dust from unsealed roads are major contributors to PM 10), PM 2.5 (the major source of which is incomplete combustion from gasoline in internal comustion engines, and in particular diesel combustion) has been shown to cause asthma, cardiopulmonary disease, lung cancer, premature death, and a host of pregnancy and birth related issues (low birth weight babies and infant death).

Once again, a lot of useful info from studies carried out by EPA in Los Angeles. Their research concludes that ilnesses such as asthma and lung cancer, and death rates rise on days when the amount of particulate matter in the air also rises. Conversely, evidence also shows the benefits of decreasing particulate matter in air: illnesses and death rates drop. This is after accounting for effects of other air pollutants.



Fair enough, something I didn't know. But now I see another reason why Iran is "evil" and must be dealt with! Do you think after it's "liberated", the new government will retain control (and therefore profits) of oil? or will the proceeds go to US companies to pay for "rebuilding"? Hmmm...



4. Impressive knowledge... what line of work are you in again?

I agree with almost all of the above, but I believe that hydrogen as a fuel is promising indeed and will be the fuel of choice rather than electric.

Let me explain.

5. While hydrogen is not a primary fuel, and rarely exists in its pure form, it is readily available through the electrolysis of water. It's analogous to a battery, or more correctly, an energy storage device, where we must put energy in to get energy out. Unfortunately, as you point out, we must put in more than we can recover later. The energy cost ratio for hydrogen is approximately 1.65. In other words, you must put in 1.65 units of energy into it, to recover 1 unit of usable energy at a later date.

When compared with the average energy cost ratio for petroleum of approximately 1.25 it doesnt sound that great. As you said however, in comparison it is extremely clean. Furthermore, the cost ratio of 1.25 only takes into account well to wheel energy expenditure (i.e. the total energy required to get the oil from the well to delivering the fuel to the end user). It doesn't include energy spent in wars and oil defense costs, cleaning up oil spills and other externalities. Also, as oil reserves get depleted, we have to drill deeper, (requiring more energy) and the oil retrieved from the bottom of the pool contains more sulfur so higher energy costs once again to remove it.

This is only going to get costlier, as we are forced to extract from lower quality wells. It is estimated that as much as 85% of remaining oil reserves are embedded in shale and tar sand deposits. Techniques to extract these are not very efficient to say the least. Shale deposits are heated to temperatures of approx 350 degrees for as long as several years before oil can be pumped out to the surface, and tar sand yields approximately 10% oil recovery, which then requires cooking at 500 degrees before it becomes similar to crude oil. The energy cost of recovering both of these is closer to 5 is to 1. But I'm diverging.

At the moment production of hydrogen as a fuel is 25% more costly in terms of energy. However, it can be converted into energy efficiently, and more importantly, cleanly in ICEs, and with even greater efficiency in fuel cells.

One of the problems currently lies with the cost of fuel cells. Approximately 10 times the cost of equivalently powered ICE (internal combustion engine). But with mass production, costs will come down significantly. The great thing about fuel cells is that they're scalable, so to get more power, all you need is more fuel cells stacked together. So the same fuel cells used in cars can be used in buses, trucks etc, hence the potential to reduce costs significantly with mass production.

Which brings us to the problem of distribution and storage. All that is needed for production of hydrogen is electricity. Production can therefore be localised to distribution points. The equipment to make hydrogen from electrolysis and compress it ready for car refuelling has been packaged for demonstration purposes to a dishwasher sized unit. In theory each household could have this particular unit work on off peak electricity (similar to your electric hot water system) for refueling vehicles for the next day.

This is neither practical nor cost efficient, but it demonstrates feasibility of smaller electrolysis units that extract hydrogen from water. Perhaps, hydrogen could be made at refuelling stations, or perhaps each community or township can have a "hydrogen plant". (Certainly doesn't need to come from Singapore. ) Transportation distances are thereofre minimised, as fuel is delivered directly to the end user. Off peak electricity can be utilised from spare production capacity during the night time, bringing production costs down even further. Of course, the fuel is only as green as the source of electricity used in its production.

Both fuel cell cars and electric cars exist today. Electric cars have a practical range of about 250 to 300 kms, and hydrogen powered cars as much as 500kms (they are combined with an electric motor which stores electricity from braking and reuses in acceleration). The main advantage of hydrogen powered cars is that they can be refuelled much like we refuel todays cars. Electric cars on the other hand need an overnight charge to resume travel. Electric cars may therefore be feasible as runabouts, shopping carts etc, while hydrogen fuel can truly replace current petroleum fuels.

So it is a catch 22, the technology to integrate it into everyday life exists, but teh manufacturers are waiting for distirbution outlets and vice versa. California is taking first steps, as much for demonstration as for public use, but it has commenced building its first "hydrogen highway" with refuelling stops every 20 miles.

Problem is, oil companies and automakers have been trying to kill both the electric and hydrogen cars. The first for lost revenue, and second for money already invested into existing technologies, but thats another story altogether.

1. My point is that while air pollution is certainly a health hazard, and as you point out, there is increases in mortality on high air pollution days, the ill effects are nothing like as severe as alcohol and tobacco, or they would swamp other effects. And, for example, death rates in Australian cities, with relatively polluted air, are lower than they are in rural areas which have low pollution. This does not mean that air pollution is good for you, it simply means that other factors are much more important (in this case, rates of smoking, high alcohol consumption and poor medical services are likely to be the major factors)

2. You've got it! See my other post.

3. As I said, there is some evidence of harmful effects, but not a lot. And California data is rather suspect when talking about diesel emissions in particular - California has had very low diesel use for many years - it is illegal to sell a diesel car there. What I see is that cities with very high diesel use, such as London, have better health outcomes than Los Angeles - again, this is not to say particulates are good for you, but simply that if they were all that bad, it would override other factors.

4. I am pretty much retired now, but I have worked in the upstream oil industry for over 45 years as a geophysicist, including work on industry committees and editing a refereed technical journal.

5. The energy cost ratio you quote for hydrogen is only that for conversion from electricity to hydrogen. You need to multiply this by the conversion ratio for the fossil fuel to electricity - which is a lot worse, and take into account the distribution efficiency of the electricity - which is a lot worse than most people want to think about.

But this, as with the distribution problems, is only a minor point. I repeat - hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is a means of distribution, and not a particularly efficient one at that. Fuel cells are a great idea - but are, and I expect to remain, very expensive - they have been in production for fifty years and are still very expensive; and almost all rely on the use of platinum, and the total world supply of platinum could not provide fuel cells for more than a few percent of the worlds cars, if that.

All hydrogen does is provide a fuel which is very low pollution at the point of use, the same as electric vehicles do.

And both have the same problem - they do not provide an energy source to replace oil, and any proposed energy source can equally be used to provide a liquid or gaseous fuel at least as efficiently, with a lot lower cost, but without the advantage of very low emissions at the point of use.

Because of the relatively low energy efficiency of the "hydrogen economy" it would be likely to result in no reduction in CO2 emissions, except to the extent that energy use drops, or possibly to the extent that CO2 capture, nuclear power or wind and solar power are used, although it needs to be pointed out that these apply to electric vehicles, with higher overall efficiencies.

John

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

1. My point is that while air pollution is certainly a health hazard, and as you point out, there is increases in mortality on high air pollution days, the ill effects are nothing like as severe as alcohol and tobacco, or they would swamp other effects. And, for example, death rates in Australian cities, with relatively polluted air, are lower than they are in rural areas which have low pollution. This does not mean that air pollution is good for you, it simply means that other factors are much more important (in this case, rates of smoking, high alcohol consumption and poor medical services are likely to be the major factors)

Actually, there are many who claim that there is. One of the keynote speakers at an Aerosol conference I was at recently stated that data shows that if you live (I assume for most of your life) in central stuttgart (worst air pollution in Germany), your life expectancy will be reduced by 10 years.

I haven't reviewed said data myself, and there may be other factors, however I believe it.

If the links between asbestos fibre and cigarette smoke exposure are so strong, why isn't there a similar link between (other) urban particulates and health??? In cities like mexico city and beijing, and effects are likely masked by other issues (and shorter life expectancy), but in affluent areas like stuttgart, it is easier to draw such links.

Originally Posted by JDNSW

But this, as with the distribution problems, is only a minor point. I repeat - hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is a means of distribution, and not a particularly efficient one at that. Fuel cells are a great idea - but are, and I expect to remain, very expensive - they have been in production for fifty years and are still very expensive; and almost all rely on the use of platinum, and the total world supply of platinum could not provide fuel cells for more than a few percent of the worlds cars, if that.

This is just semantics. You don't get a net energy gain from any system... However using solar or wind energy to produce hydrogen from Methane + CO2 is fairly efficient. And the other 2 methods I mentioned above (algae and coal or coal gas) production methods are also promising (of course coal and coal gas are not 100% renewable).

Sure - Hydrogen is a means of distribution and storage of energy - but so is any chemical energy system... (oil, gas, etc...)

Originally Posted by JDNSW

1. My point is that while air pollution is certainly a health hazard, and as you point out, there is increases in mortality on high air pollution days, the ill effects are nothing like as severe as alcohol and tobacco, or they would swamp other effects. And, for example, death rates in Australian cities, with relatively polluted air, are lower than they are in rural areas which have low pollution. This does not mean that air pollution is good for you, it simply means that other factors are much more important (in this case, rates of smoking, high alcohol consumption and poor medical services are likely to be the major factors)

2. You've got it! See my other post.

3. As I said, there is some evidence of harmful effects, but not a lot. And California data is rather suspect when talking about diesel emissions in particular - California has had very low diesel use for many years - it is illegal to sell a diesel car there. What I see is that cities with very high diesel use, such as London, have better health outcomes than Los Angeles - again, this is not to say particulates are good for you, but simply that if they were all that bad, it would override other factors.

4. I am pretty much retired now, but I have worked in the upstream oil industry for over 45 years as a geophysicist, including work on industry committees and editing a refereed technical journal.

5. The energy cost ratio you quote for hydrogen is only that for conversion from electricity to hydrogen. You need to multiply this by the conversion ratio for the fossil fuel to electricity - which is a lot worse, and take into account the distribution efficiency of the electricity - which is a lot worse than most people want to think about.

But this, as with the distribution problems, is only a minor point. I repeat - hydrogen is not a source of energy. It is a means of distribution, and not a particularly efficient one at that. Fuel cells are a great idea - but are, and I expect to remain, very expensive - they have been in production for fifty years and are still very expensive; and almost all rely on the use of platinum, and the total world supply of platinum could not provide fuel cells for more than a few percent of the worlds cars, if that.

All hydrogen does is provide a fuel which is very low pollution at the point of use, the same as electric vehicles do.

And both have the same problem - they do not provide an energy source to replace oil, and any proposed energy source can equally be used to provide a liquid or gaseous fuel at least as efficiently, with a lot lower cost, but without the advantage of very low emissions at the point of use.

Because of the relatively low energy efficiency of the "hydrogen economy" it would be likely to result in no reduction in CO2 emissions, except to the extent that energy use drops, or possibly to the extent that CO2 capture, nuclear power or wind and solar power are used, although it needs to be pointed out that these apply to electric vehicles, with higher overall efficiencies.

John

John

1.) If we're talking about the cost burden to health care systems, it is indeed significant. Every time you go to the doctor, it's a burden on the health system, every day you miss work, its a cost burden on the health system, and the biggest one of all, cumulative effects on hte ageing population, respiratory ilnesses etc, while tehy don't kill you (or not right away) you need medical care for years, also placing significant cost burden on the health system. In addition, effects of alcohol and tobacco are restircted to smokers and drinkers. The effects of air pollution are distributed more or less to urban populations, which in Australia is above 90% I'm told.

2.) Sure do, thanks for the explanation (and Ben!)

3.) California data dates back from the 70's to today, a period of over 30 years. It examines the health effects from particulates in general, one of the major sources of which are ICEs. Diesel combustion emits more particulates than petrol, but at the end of the day both emit significant quatitites of PM 2.5 which has been shown to be harmful to health.

I am quoting the results of an extended study on the health effects of particulates, you seem to be discounting it on the basis of relative mortality and morbidity rates of London vs LA (which may depend on a range of other factors, and if the likes of Bowling for Columbine, Supersize Me and Sicko documentaries are to be even partially beleived, would easilt discredit the arguement.) Other questions arise, such as are these (relative morbidity and mortality rates) results of controlled studies, or just your gut feel?

4.) Cool, explains a few things.

5.) While platinum is a rare metal and is required for use as a catalyst, especially to improve low temperature efficiency, it is not the only viable one . Palladium and nano-iron powder are also posiible alternatives.

Research on gold-palladium coating is also showing promise as a viable alternative, and may be less suceptible to fouling leading to longer lasting fuel cells.

In any case, yes, it is a technical challenge, and it is not the only one, but if history is anything to go by, these are all surmountable. The point I'm trying to make is that it is a viable technology, it is clean, and current progress appears to be limited by lack of funds and pollitical opposition.

To give an example, the big three US automakers (GM, Ford and Chrysler) formed the US Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) to "research" viable technologies for Zero Emission Vehicles ZEVs (which they were coerced into through CAFE legislation and Californian ZEV development mandate). Instead, together with American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) and Californian Manufacturers Association (CMA) did their best to kill ZEVs in their tracks. GM even produced a limited number of ZEVs (EV 1) which it leased to californians (hoping to prove they were not viable), but when the user enthusiasm didn't wane, they recalled the vehicles and had most of them destroyed.

In another instance, when Ovonic and Electrosource, two companies enlisted by the USABC to create batteries they thought couldn't be made (to give range of 300+ km to electric vehicles), got close to perfecting them, confidentiality clauses were used to mothball their development.

And there are many other examples of opposition to alternative technologies by oil and automobile companies in the US.

And yes, I completely agree, electric vehicles are also a viable option, the only potential problem is recharge time. So like I said, great as a city runabout, but you're not likely to be able to pack the family for a day out to Margaret River.

Have a look into the Norsk Hydro demonstration project on Utsira (combined wind, desal and H2 fuel cell). It has been up and running since 2004. The cost of electricity is A$2.1/kWh at the moment, but this is likely to drop to $0.55/kWh by 2020-2050

Gee that is exciting. Just looking at my power bill, I see that prime time electricity costs 11.7 cents per Kwh including distribution costs, profits to Government etc.
Night rate is 4.9 C per Kwh.
So I can look forward to paying 20times or so my current cost in the brave new Hydrogen world.
I venture to say that they could have a million Chinese ladies scrubbing CO2 by hand and a coal station would still be MUCH MUCH cheaper.
Looks just a leetle utopian to me. At those prices it will never happen
Regards Philip A

Originally Posted by PhilipA

Gee that is exciting. Just looking at my power bill, I see that prime time electricity costs 11.7 cents per Kwh including distribution costs, profits to Government etc.
Night rate is 4.9 C per Kwh.
So I can look forward to paying 20times or so my current cost in the brave new Hydrogen world.
I venture to say that they could have a million Chinese ladies scrubbing CO2 by hand and a coal station would still be MUCH MUCH cheaper.
Looks just a leetle utopian to me. At those prices it will never happen
Regards Philip A

Yes, it is exciting - it is the first system of its kind and of course it is going to be expensive at the start... duh...

Your 4.9c will increase to about 7 by 2020. So that makes a system like the Norsk Hydro one about 6-7 times that.

The million chinese ladies won't make a dent in the CO2, but Geosequestration will. Estimates are that it will increase costs to about 12c/kWh (again 2020 prices). That is IF the technology works, and IF we can build them fast enough. But there are other options like using the CO2 to grow biodiesel-algae or hydrogen producing algae.

Of course, as well as solving the CO2 emissions from coal, we also need to solve the SOx and (radioactive) Radon Gas emissions. One of the reasons your power is so cheap is that Australia is about the only country that doesn't have SOx scrubbers on its coal power stations - EVEN CHINA HAS THEM!!!

Originally Posted by isuzurover

........

This is just semantics. You don't get a net energy gain from any system... However using solar or wind energy to produce hydrogen from Methane + CO2 is fairly efficient. And the other 2 methods I mentioned above (algae and coal or coal gas) production methods are also promising (of course coal and coal gas are not 100% renewable).

Sure - Hydrogen is a means of distribution and storage of energy - but so is any chemical energy system... (oil, gas, etc...)

All of the methods you suggest are primarily using fossil fuel as the energy source to produce hydrogen - as I keep pointing out, hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a energy transmission method. Methane and coal are not 100% renewable, they are not renewable - except some sources of methane. And the methane as compressed gas is a more efficient (overall) transport fuel than hydrogen, and the technology is here now. I expect the overall conversion of coal to hydrogen is lower than if the coal was used to produce syngas and from that liquid fuel, or using Fischer-Tropsch to go straight to liquid fuel, even taking into account the increased efficiency of the hydrogen fuelled engine.

Of course liquid and gaseous natural hydrocarbons are also energy transmission methods, but they are also energy sources, which hydrogen is not.

John

Originally Posted by isuzurover

........One of the reasons your power is so cheap is that Australia is about the only country that doesn't have SOx scrubbers on its coal power stations - EVEN CHINA HAS THEM!!!

Uhh.... one of the reasons Australia is about the only country that does not use SOx scrubbers is that the need for them is far less - most if not all Australian coal is low in sulphur, probably because it is mostly Permian rather than Carboniferous as in the northern hemisphere, and the washing carried out before combustion removes most of the sulphur, which is mainly present as pyrites in the coals I have examined. This does not remove all the sulphur, but I expect levels of SOx emissions from Australian power stations would generally be quite low, despite the lack of scrubbers. (One of the hazards of extrapolating data from one area to another!)

John