When will Hydrogen fuel be viable?

Replacing fossil fuels with Hydrogen power has been seen as a panacea for decades. I would not bet on Hydrogen anytime soon, if ever - at least not as a chemical fuel.

Replacing fossil fuels with Hydrogen requires the following:

• Hydrogen generation (replaces gas/oil/coal extraction)
• Hydrogen transportation (replaces pipelines and box-cars)
• Hydrogen power plant (replaces engines and generators)

On Earth, Hydrogen (H₂) does not occur naturally in great abundance, and what little exists quickly floats to the top of the atmosphere and escapes into space. To get it, we must generate it via electrolysis - separate water into Hydrogen and Oxygen. We must use Clean energy (Wind, Solar, Hydroelectric, Geothermal) to generate the electricity, or we are back to where we started burning fossil fuels and adding carbon to the atmosphere.

Next, we have to store that Hydrogen (safely!) and transport it to where we need it. Hydrogen is very, very small and it leaks through microscopic cracks in pipes. A pipe that looks perfectly smooth and could hold water, gasoline or even Oxygen would still allow Hydrogen to leak through in small amounts.

Finally, we have to burn the Hydrogen to do some work. That means using an internal combustion engine to create motion or using a fuel cell to create electricity (which can be used with a motor). The waste product (water vapor) is safe, but we do not get all of the energy out that we put in during electrolysis.

So there's the problem: Create electricity to create Hydrogen to burn it to do some work. Each step in the process loses some energy. Electrolysis has its inefficiencies. Unless generated locally, moving Hydrogen loses Hydrogen! Releasing the energy from Hydrogen through a fuel cell or combustion has its inefficiencies, too. Why not just use the original source electricity from the original Solar, Wind, Hydro or Geothermal?

Well, original power sources are cyclical, unreliable, diurnal or unavailable. Converting to Hydrogen does allow the energy to be stored. So, even with the inefficiencies, it's better to have some power all the time than no power some of the time. That's a legitimate argument. However, that means we should be looking at the best (cleanest, most efficient) methods for storing energy. Does Hydrogen fit that bill?

I strongly suspect the best method for storing the Sun's energy will be biofuels made from non-food vegetable matter. Burning Hydrogen is about 1/3 as efficient as burning hydrocarbons. If we can make our hydrocarbons from plant or algae (renewably, sustainably), this beats Hydrogen. Meanwhile, battery technology continues to improve. Plus, there are all sorts of interesting energy storage methods under research.

There's an installation in Great Britain, a house off the grid that uses its excess eletricity to separate Hydrogen and store it in tanks for those winter months when the sun is low. Fuel cells use the Hydrogen to make electricity. Cost is about $1.45 Million.

Maybe this price will come down, maybe.

Of course, Hydrogen already powers our world. That great nuclear reactor in the sky dumps all of the world's energy needs for one year upon us in one hour. There will be a day when we find a way to make fusion reactors that produce more energy than they consume. While we are waiting, we need to work on demand reduction and clean supply.

Solar on your roof? Act quickly for more savings

If you live in San Francisco and have been thinking about putting PV (photovoltaics or solar cells) on your roof, you may want to act quickly. The San Francisco Public Utility Commission recently discussed reducing residential rebates from $6000 down to $4000. That's still a significant rebate, but that $2000 drop means you will have to wait that much longer for electric bill savings to start paying off your system.

If you haven't been thinking about it, you should. Right now, you will not find a better and more cost effective time to install PVs. The City has a huge rebate, California provides a rebate based upon power output and the you get a tax rebate on your Federal taxes, as well. That can turn a $14K installation into $3500.

Recently, I requested quotes from a number of solar installers. There were two that I really liked (Marin Solar and Sungevity), and I picked Marin Solar. A third, One Block Off the Grid, also looks good, but I had already signed the installation contract before I found this last one.

I decided to go with Marin Solar because they were able to get more power from our roof. Our roof has shading issues and a tight layout. Marin Solar's panels cost a little bit more, but they get more power out of smaller space.

Sungevity has a great story and they front load the rebates, meaning you pay net of all estimated rebates. They eat the difference if the rebates come up short and you get the balance if more comes in than originally expected. Contrast that with Marin solar who gets me more wattage, but requires me to layout more upfront cash.

One Block Off the Grid looks to be a grassroots movement for PV installation around the country. They negotiate installation at group rates with local installers. Quite possibly, one of these other installers would still be doing the work, but presumably for cheaper than you could get directly. They are evaluating installations starting in January, so most likely too late to get the $6000 rebate (although that's tight for everybody, at this point).

Many of the PV installer sites are very simple to use. You type in your address and they locate your home on Google maps, grab your roof's profile and do a rough estimate of your shading and panel spacing. With your average electricity usage (available from PG&E online), they can calculate your annual savings, overall savings and return on investment (time until the system pays for itself).

Good luck.

What is a "Foodshed"?!

Here's a great report on the San Francisco Foodshed. Oh, what is a "foodshed" and why should you care?

Just like a regional watershed, a city/county/region has a "foodshed" from which it may eat. 100 years ago, the foodshed comprised nearly everything that individuals ate. With the advent of modern food processing systems, food moves around the country and the world as so much raw material being processed into an "incognito" state. The movement of the food requires the burning of fossil fuels. The processing of the food requires burning fossil fuels. The movement of the processed food to yet another region requires burning of fossil fuels. You get the idea.

This doesn't even touch upon problems created by irrigation (clean water), fertilizers (fossil fuels) and pesticides (petro-chemicals), but that discussion must wait for another day.

By bringing the notion of a foodshed into the public's conscience, this movement hopes to create awareness of a food's provenance - it's history. Who grew it? How did it reach your local market? Your refrigerator? Your restuarant? Are you eating food hidden behind a vast processing system or are you eating something grown within your region?

Is this a rally cry against the Big Corporations? No, although it may seem so at first glance. Really, this is the suggestion that the true cost of food production (fuel and preservatives) may not be reflected in the price of the food we are consuming. Furthermore, that calorie for calorie local food may be better than distributed food for both a healthy planet and healthy populace.

Should we only eat locally grown food? I'm an everything in moderation kind of guy. I think it's OK to eat strawberries from South America in February. Perhaps, however, I shouldn't eat them everyday, or maybe I should make some strawberry jam during the summer and save it for my wintertime cravings. Maybe one day, if we all work at this hard enough, that tanker bringing in the strawberries will run on biodiesel produced from non-food vegetable material and solar electric power, thereby alleviating my guilt.

Can you be Green and not eat locally? Sounds like that's a little food for thought. ;)

I really like this CFL

Compact flourescents can be a little too blue and harsh. There's a CFL "Eco-Smart" (from Cyber Tech Lighting) that has a shorter base and tigher curls (more bulb) and comes in a great "warm white bulb" model. The 18 watt version is the same brightness as a 75 watt bulb.

It's gives off a nice glow -- easy on the eyes.

There are made in China, which means carbon costs for shipping them to the US. However, if you're looking to reduce your household energy usage, these are a good way to go.

Recession hurts recycling

The Ventura County Star article by Zeke Barlow - "Plunging prices for recyclables are hurting businesses" - explains how recycling companies and individuals are challenged by the drop in metals, plastic and paper prices. The concern is that many of these materials will end up going back to the landfill for wont of buyers willing to pay salvage costs.

The real and fundamental problem is that the current prices of the original raw materials do not reflect their true extraction and production costs; the production and distribution of the raw materials are heavily subsidized. This makes the apparent cost of recycling significantly higher. However, if the true costs of the raw material extraction were priced in, this would not be an issue.

How do we move from an energy and material subsidized economy to one in which we pay real value for the goods we buy? Furthermore, how do we do it in the middle of this economic climate when long-range planning has taken a backseat to the here and now?

"Daddy, can I have a copy of our PGE bill?"

My son walked into the office six weeks ago.

"Daddy, can I have a copy of our PGE bill?"
"Sure, kiddo, what do you need it for?"
"We're doing a school project on energy usage."

It turns out that my son's sixth grade class is planning a trip to a Spanish speaking country next year. The students have to raise the money for the trip, parents aren't supposed to just pay for it. To help raise funds the students and teachers decided to ask all of the sixth grade families to pledge one month energy savings (year over year). It was each students' responsibility to work with their families to lower gas and eletricity usage. The entire process was made part of the science curicullum as a project with a final written paper.

I started looking at the bill, closely. Wow! Those top-end energy tiers sure do cost alot of money. Cutting down electricity usage would surely be both environmentally and wallet friendly. I've always thought of myself as a friend of the environment. However, intent is one thing and action is another.

So, can one little school project on saving energy change the world? I surely hope so.