by: Michael Hoexter
As the reality of global warming dawns for even the more resistant deniers of the problem, there are now a bunch of proposals and ideas regarding how we are going to tap into energy sources and do work in a future sustainable society.
Click image to enlarge.
While biofuels are the flavor du jour from official circles, not as much has been heard lately from advocates of hydrogen-powered fuel cells, still another contender for the future of energy and transport. News occasionally filters in from vehicle manufacturers who publicize the latest phase of their efforts to commercialize hydrogen vehicles: just a few days ago Honda announced that it has leased one of its multi-million dollar FCX hydrogen fuel cell vehicles to a 17-year old actress and environmental activist. If the net effect of current publicity is summed up, it is difficult to discern a clear picture of how we will proceed in a very short time window towards a carbon-reduced or carbon-neutral energy future. It is then left to partisans of one solution or another to advocate for their favorite solution to the climate crisis/dependence on fossil fuels.
I believe the picture is not really as complicated as it is made out to be, that in fact, the immediate and middle-term solutions are in certain respects more mundane than we have come to expect in a society used to rapid technological change and flashy marketing. On the other hand, technical innovation and even virtuosity will be required for us to equal or surpass our current standard of living in a more sustainable manner.
The Electron Economy: What is it?
The Swiss-based fuel-cell engineer and entrepreneur Ulf Bossel coined the term and concept “electron economy”. In my conversations with him, Ulf says that he came up with the notion of the “electron economy” to counteract the influence of Jeremy Rifkin’s “Hydrogen Economy” concept. In 2001-2002, Rifkin had been touring Europe gaining the attention of governments and environmental groups in support of using hydrogen as the energy carrier of the future. Despite being heavily invested in fuel cells as a technology, Ulf and the conference he organizes, the European Fuel Cell Forum, have repudiated hydrogen as a fuel for fuel cells (favoring other fuels like alcohols etc.) due to the net inefficiency of isolating and storing hydrogen (maximum efficiency of 25%). The end product of all fuel cells is electricity so with hydrogen fuel cells you would lose at least 75 joules of energy to generate the equivalent of 25 joules of electricity at the point of use.
Ulf explains the electron economy concept here in a paper from 2005.
Here in summary are the main aspects of the electron economy:
- Electricity, it turns out, is a highly efficient and flexible carrier of energy.
- Electric motors are highly efficient energy conversion devices (85 to 95% efficiency vs. 15-25% for typical gasoline engines).
- Newer (hydrogen) and older competitors (fossil fuels) to electricity are less efficient and/or have environmental drawbacks.
- We already have over a century of experience with electricity
- Renewable energy sources (wind, sun, tides, geothermal heat) can usually most efficiently be converted to electricity rather than to other carriers like biofuels (solar cells, though currently expensive, are up to 400 times more efficient in converting sunlight into energy than plants).
- We should focus on transitioning to a largely electric energy infrastructure with the probable exception of fuels for aviation and shipping, where biofuels will have advantages.
- Increasing the energy-to-weight ratio and usefulness of electricity storage devices (batteries, etc.) is largely a technical and economic issue that will change for the better, as has been already witnessed in the portable electronics industry. Setting today’s battery capacity as an upper-limit to what can be done with batteries and electricity storage is a political move, not based on reasonable expectations for even modest technological improvements.
- Even an economy fueled in part by fossil fuels can be made less environmentally damaging by increased use of electricity as an energy carrier and using electric energy conversion devices like electric motors.Using fossil fuels in highly efficient fuel cells and combined-cycle power plants to generate electricity is second-best to electricity generated by renewable sources but may play transitional roles to a carbon-neutral economy.
The Electron Economy: Why is this concept useful?
For some the notion of an electron economy will appear to be a re-statement of the obvious while for others it may appear to be a tendentious bit of advocacy for one set of technologies and energy sources over others. I believe however that using the “electron economy” concept can be a helpful guide for handicapping what will and should happen in an economy that takes sustainability and efficient use of resources seriously.
It is true that we already partially live in an electron economy as much of the energy we use comes to us via electricity. The areas where electricity is not the primary energy carrier are transport and heating, so an advancement of the electron economy would mean advancing the use of electricity in these areas where feasible and desirable. The primary focus of the electron economy concept is largely the transport sector but could also have applications in heating applications as well.
The concept is useful because it highlights how theoretical and actual energy efficiencies will eventually favor electricity over its two competitors within the arena of clean energy solutions: biofuels and hydrogen fuel cells. Currently, in the marketplace of ideas in places such as Treehugger or in the mainstream media, it appears as though it is a horserace between these alternatives, that it is just a matter of taste or arcane insight into technology that favors the choice of one over the other. And as indicated above, biofuels and even hydrogen may have a place in a sustainable energy future but they are not nearly as well developed nor as efficient as electricity and electric motors.
Even in the area of heating, where electricity has historically been more expensive and less efficient than the use of combustible fuels, the use of induction heating in cooking and ground-source heat pumps in space heating are two examples of how largely electric-powered solutions can either compete with or surpass heating from combustible fuels in the area of efficiency. And of course, generating electricity does not necessarily release greehouse gases into the atmosphere..
I’m intrigued to see what other solutions (biofuels from algae, highly efficient alcohol or biodiesel fueled fuel cells) come up, but the electron economy would appear to be the central energy infrastructure in a sustainable economy. Perhaps if you favor a more exotic solution, within the next century a newer,“sexier” energy carrier (plasma streams? Bose-Einstein condensates?) may arise.
In a future post I will highlight some of the marketing challenges that face those who seek to advance the electron economy or individual products that support its growth, as it is a concept that is both commonplace and yet based on technical principles that are slightly arcane.
Original Post: http://terraverde.wordpress.com/2007/03/12/the-electron-economy-the-energy-future-is-nearer-than-you-think/
Mike,
I was just revisiting the site and saw your reply!
Thank you and all points agreed with the exception of efficiency losses in hydrogen conversion and storage. My experience following researchers over the past five years suggests that we are very much capable of developing highly efficientcatalysts and storage medium materials.
Bossel, Romm and all other widely read sketpics of H2 conversion seem unaware, or fail to mention the great progress being made in materials science labs around nanoscale designs of critical catalyst/membrane components. I blog about these specific examples...
I see on your blog that you have posted something new! glad to have discovered it... !
I am familiar with Bossel's efficiency statements but believed that they will not stand the test of time as we design nanoscale catalysts that solve the use efficiency issues. I think he fails to recognize advances in materials science and biologically driven conversion processes. The reality is that we know little about H2 conversion and storage.
Bossel frames a futures context based off of current day technologies. He does not account for disruptive technologies or the contined dominance of fossil fuels.
I do not see electrons delivered through batteries or capacitors as 'competitors' to fuel cells or vice versa. I think that all three technologies have a very bright future given their very unique characteristics.
We are simply in a period where being a skeptic over hydrogen is fashionable given its failure to live up to its hype...
I think in a medium term the electron economy and the hydrogen economy are essentially the same thing and do not wish to debate that point.
I do prefer the language of an electron economy over hydrogen economy. But am always conscious to link the two as essentially the same thing.
But...
Given the vast amounts of hydrocarbon-based resources that will likely be used in the next century to power the planet I think that extracting electrons from a hydrocarbon chains is a smart economic and environmental strategy.
Extracting those hydrogen molecules is already improving around the nanoscale design of catalyst and membranes.
I believe hydrogen is a wonderful electron carrier for cleaning fossil fuels. Given the role that coal is expected to play in electricity production- (nearly 60% globally) I think we would be wise to leverage gasification and the use of fuel cells. the same goes for non-combustion-based conversion of natural gas. Bossel speaks of a world beyond this--- and I support him. But electrons converted thru H2 from gasification or reformation is more efficient than pure combustion.
A pure electron economy is a fantastic long-term vision where are solar becomes the dominant primary input. But I am trying to understand the role of hydrogen in a near-term future that is dominated by fossil fuels
Again I highlight these research examples on my blog: www.garrygolden.net
I hate to write and sound like I am up on a soap box... but I do believe that hydrogen is being sold short today based off of the popular misconception that we will never be able to extract or store it in a way that is commercially feasible.
glad to have discovered your writings..!! I'll be subscribing...!
Thank you for your replies.
Re: hydrogen vs. electric storage
Garry, I think you are missing the efficiency argument that Bossel so clearly lays out in his work on the electron economy...how much energy is lost in isolating hydrogen and stabilizing it in gaseous, liquid or solid form? A whole lot as it turns out. Many advocates of hydrogen seem to have lost sight of the purpose of switching to an alternate fuel in the first place. Currently hydrogen is generated by reforming natural gas, which requires a lot of energy and produces a lot of carbon monoxide. If we were in a regime of extremely abundant renewable energy, cleanly generated hydrogen from electrolysis MIGHT have a role as a storage medium though there might be other media that eventually are more promising. Unless some breakthrough in the safety and energy efficiency of the process occurs, which would of course be great, we would have to be willing to sacrifice a lot of energy for hydrogen over electrochemical or physical storage mechanisms and at that point, batteries or ultracapacitors will probably have a still better power and energy density than they currently do.
Re: making money
You make money by delivering value or connecting people with value: I’ve outlined how building out the electric infrastructure and renewable ways to generate and store electricity as well as building and marketing desirable electrically powered products are part of the core of a not too distant future sustainable economy. With carbon trading, taxation or credits, generating, storing and converting electricity to new types of useful work will start to look like a much better business proposition than it currently is...still better if the electricity is generated in a carbon neutral manner. That clean electricity, by the way, will in most locations not be cheap for a long time, leading to opportunities to create and deliver value on both the supply and the demand side.
Re: climate change
Cannot get into debating in detail whether we are actually having an effect on the climate through our use of fossil fuels in this blog. My blog is called “Green Thoughts” so I assume my readers have at least some interest in figuring out how to lessen or better manage our impact on non-human living systems. . I guess I could have been more precise in my use of language had I thought about the variety of people who might come across the post: used the word “denier” more in the sense of “being in denial” which means that you don’t “see the elephant in the room” rather than in terms of the verbal utterance of a denial.
I have yet to hear a scientifically grounded argument that explains why pumping more greenhouse gases in the air will NOT lead to more global warming or how the earth will somehow reabsorb or mitigate the effects of our copious use of fossil carbon to power our civilization. I am also willing to accept and act on the scientific consensus that has developed around this issue, not only because I think the effects of global warming will be harmful to us but because overall our society has not developed in a sustainable manner. The climate crisis is an opportunity to take the next step in our human and economic evolution
Making money is the question...
IMHO I see H2 as a way of rapidly expanding access to all forms of energy (hydrocarbon/renewables). Profits come from market expansion... both of energy consumption and the economic productivity that results from having energy. (energy consumption has a linear relationship to GDP) H2 is a way to increase consumption...
My story of the future - is selling electron energy by 'packets' not as part of a 'stream'. It is more important to deliver electrons to individuals not to wall sockets in a home. 'Packets' can be sold next to bars of soap- without a contract - this allows us to expand access to energy to developing nations and meet expectations for portability of this age of gadgets. i.e. companies make money. (I wrote a piece on my blog titled: "Can Walmart beat Big Oil?" looking at the future potential of retail based distribution of electrons.
Also - 'packets' help expand product design. "No more need to connect to wall sockets..?!" Product designers can go crazy... (e.g. lighting, sound, screens, etc...) No more wall sockets or need for electrical systems in a home - and you drop the cost of building/maintaining a house. My meme is 'unplug everything' - 'plug in is dead' (to give a Wired flare)
Re: batteries. I'm sure they will not go away. There is an odd defensive tone among many battery people against micro fuel cells. I am not 'pro fuel cell, anti-battery'-- it's all the same principle. (I love CNT capicators - but it's just part of the electron economy strategy!)
I think it's important to recognize the benefits of separating fuel from oxidant - and the market incentives for 'refilling' rather than recharging. There is more money to be made in keeping the fuel separate. Some say 'I'd rather transport electrons then molecules' - but I disagree and think the statement simplifies the complexities of producing, storing and delivering electrons.
From a design standpoint - we'll go further by 'refilling' then recharging. It's simply a matter of energy density and micro fuel cells will win that came in the end. They will be smaller and non-toxic... We simply need to find the right membranes to make it happen...(check out CMR (UK))
Electrons power the future. And we make money by flooding the world with stable forms of electrons. H2 is about decentralization of production and delivery. It can bring all primary sources of energy 'online' without the cost of connecting to a grid. H2 is about bringing all hydrocarbons into the non-combustion age of electricity production. (It adds market incentive to the gasification of coal...) H2 - and electric vehicles- are about giving renewables a chance to compete in all fuel markets (today they are excluded from transportation and combustion engine)
You make money by expanding access to electrons- H2 is simply an open 'standard' if you choose to see it. It's similar to the Internet- create open, unified and decentralized standards - and participation within the system increases. With batteries- you must be connected to the 'grid' to play. So what about billions of people in the world not connected to a grid?! I say 'packets' is the best strategy- if they have access to retail points- then we can deliver electrons safely and based on local primary energy inputs.
La, that was more than I intended to write... no intent of flaming here!!
I am just disturbed by how fashionable it has become for 'pro-green' folks to become skeptical of H2 without seeing its real potential - decentralization. H2 is not a solution to climate change- it's a strategy for eliminating global poverty. And if you want to talk about how close we are to commercialization - look at materials science research and the leaps in performance around nanoscale engineering...
While you're welcome to jump on the global warming gravy-train and enjoy whatever money/power/influence it confers upon you (Y2K bug, anyone?), your zealotry goes too far using the term "deniers". It's a transparent attempt to equate those who dare to ask questions, with holocaust deniers. It's offensive, and betrays the paucity of your thinking. Global warming? Absolutely. Causes? That's the real question. If you can explain the global warming (worse than this one) that occurred in AD900-1100, you might get your answers.
Electrons power the future and I appreciate the framing of the electron economy - but think we shoot ourselves in the foot trying to deny hydrogen's role in the electricity domain. H2 and electricity are essentially the same thing - carriers of electrons. (Hydricity as G. Ballard says..!) Electricity alone (produced through solar, wind, coal, etc... stored and converted through batteries or capacitors) has its own set of problems. H2 - stored as a solid (not a gas/liquid) is a wonderful way to store electrons. H2 also allows for remoted energy production without the cost of connecting to transmission lines. Nanoscale designed catalysts will improve production by orders of magnitude. H2 is a great way to bring hydrocarbons into the 'green' world of non-combustion based conversion. H2 is also a tool for distributing electrons to billions of people around the world. Solid 'packet's of H2 sold over retail shelves and converted thru micro fuel cells could take every object off the grid. And greatly expand global access to electrons. Lots to say here- energy is a complicated conversation with lots of emotion. I use my blog at http://garrygolden.wordpress.com to highlight materials science research related to electron based energy.
Yeah...but the real question is how could you make money from it?
Plus, some nano-carbon battey may solve the recharge issue.