[Note: This webpage has recently been updated to reflect the new (and much higher) average U.S. cost per gallon of gasoline. Many thanks are extended to the huge number of visitors received by this page of our company's website!]

     Despite the recent efforts of the U.S. government and big business to stimulate public enthusiasm for a commitment to hydrogen as the ideal clean fuel-of-tomorrow, most people actually know very little about electrolysis and fuel cells – and even less about the fiscal realities of trying to develop a hydrogen energy infrastructure or "hydrogen economy". Therefore, this webpage is intended to offer a brief critical overview of the whole hydrogen issue, and to assess how AESI's 'StarDrive Generator' technology might be used to help make hydrogen power financially feasible – because at present it simply is not. 

    Hydrogen (H2) is of course the lightest and simplest gas, and is by far the most abundant element in the universe. And because its combustion with oxygen produces only pure water vapor as a byproduct, it is potentially a very clean energy source for use in automobiles. But when stored in a compressed or even liquid state, hydrogen contains much less energy than the same volume of the conventional fossil fuels. Moreover, no large-scale manufacturing, transport, or distribution system for hydrogen yet exists.

    To gain a clearer understanding of why hydrogen is not fiscally feasible as a motor fuel, and is apt to remain so for quite some time to come, it will first be apropos to briefly summarize the only three (3) methods of producing it which presently have any realistic viability for practical use on a commercial scale. Most literate adults are probably aware that the simplest method of producing hydrogen is by the electrolysis of water. As Michael Faraday first demonstrated in 1820, when an electric current is passed through water, hydrogen gas is "reduced" at the cathode (or negative electrode) and oxygen is released at the anode (or positive electrode). As it turns out, twice the volume of hydrogen will be produced per unit time as that of oxygen at any given level of applied DC current, which one might expect based on the formula for water (H2O). 

    While the electrolysis of water produces hydrogen gas of the highest purity and no harmful pollutants in-process, at present about 72% of electricity in the U.S. is generated using fossil fuels – so indirectly such a hydrogen production method is environmentally undesirable. And the electric power requirements of water electrolysis given any present method of power generation except a renewable or "free" energy source system make it simply too expensive to use in producing H2 on an industrial scale. 

    The great majority of the bulk hydrogen used today is produced by steam reformation of natural gas (methane, CH4). Methane is reacted with water vapor over a catalyst to form carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrogen. This catalytic reaction also releases oxygen, however, which can be combined with the toxic CO to produce carbon dioxide (CO2). Nevertheless, the CO2 is still an undesirable greenhouse gas, and natural gas is (of course) a non-renewable hydrocarbon resource. [It should be noted that proven global reserves of natural gas will be adequate to last less than 70 years, at the present rate of consumption.] 

    The third practical method of hydrogen production, the electrolysis of methanol, was developed a few years ago by scientists at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. This system comprises an electrolytic cell with a proton-conducting polymeric membrane having a catalytic anode deposited on one side and catalytic cathode on the other. An aqueous solution of methanol (CH3OH) is circulated past the anode, where a reaction takes place that allows hydrogen ions to pass through the membrane to the cathode for reduction to H2. [ref.: www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Jun02/NPO19948.html] While CO2 is (once again) produced in-process at the anode, a much lower driving voltage is required for this electrolytic reaction than for water – and the cost per unit of energy product is nearly 50% less even considering the added step of making the methanol required. However, at present the 'best' method of producing methanol is based on the catalytic reaction of coal-derived synthesis gas, and thus a fuel cell infrastructure reliant on methanol electrolysis would be dependent on the mining of coal. 

    Regardless of which of these methods is used to manufacture H2, most energy analysts agree that these processes can only be cost-effective if the electricity input comes from renewable sources, e.g. hydro-, solar-, and wind-generated power, where all the input energy of the electrical power generation system itself is essentially free! [A couple years ago, our initial research found that the end-user price for liquid hydrogen was quite close to $4 per gallon when produced commercially by water electrolysis, $3 per gal. by steam reformation of methane (natural gas), and $2 per gal. by electrolysis of methanol. The most accurate current figures we've been able to develop are respectively $4.45, $3.34, and $2.23.] 

    Before we proceed with a discussion of how the cost of hydrogen's energy content per unit volume compares with that of gasoline (at present), and of what would be needed in the way of electric power production efficiency to truly support a hydrogen fuel cell infrastructure based on electrolytic reactions, certain facts related to electrolysis should perhaps be reviewed. We'll be focusing on water electrolysis in this assessment overall, as it represents the most desirable H2 production method environmentally – despite its greater expense. 

    These helpful background facts are as follows: 

– a mole (short for "molecular weight") represents that quantity of any substance which has a weight in grams equal to the atomic weight of each of its constituent molecules. The actual number of molecules in a mole of any substance is equal to Avogadro's constant (6.022 × 10²³). [A mole of any (ideal) gas occupies a volume of 22.4 liters at standard temperature and pressure.] 

– the coulomb is the standard MKS unit of electric charge, and is equal to 6.242 × 10¹⁸ electrons or elementary charges. The number of electrons transported through a conductor by a DC current of one ampere (amp) flowing for one second is 1 coulomb. 

– it requires 96,484 coulombs (Faraday's constant of electrolysis) to reduce or deposit one mole of any material at the cathode in an electrolytic cell. 

– as a unit of power, 1 watt equals one (1) joule (of energy) per second, or the product of 1 ampere of current at 1 volt. 

    The most important fact upon which our discussion will be based is that it takes 237.13 kJ (237,130 joules) per mole of electrical energy * to synthesize hydrogen by electrolysis of water, regardless of the applied voltage or the net efficiency of the cell. Not surprisingly, a fuel cell is essentially just the reverse of an electrolytic cell: whereas electricity is used to decompose water into its constituent gases in the electrolytic cell, in a fuel cell water and electricity are generated by the direct recombination of hydrogen and oxygen. For an excellent - if somewhat technical - description of these two processes, a visit to the hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu website is recommended. * [It's important to realize that the environment at typical ambient temperature contributes thermal energy equal to 48.7 kJ per mole to the hydrogen electrolytic process, as shown in the material presented via the preceding link.] 

[Notes on Electrolytic and Fuel Cell Efficiencies:  If we consider the total input energy of the water electrolytic process in relation to the reduced hydrogen's potential energy of combustion, an ideal electrolytic cell is just 100% efficient by strict interpretation. However, due to IR (resistance heating) losses in the electrolyzed water and other factors, real-world efficiencies range from 83% under laboratory conditions to as low as 66% in a typical commercial-scale facility. Nevertheless, because approximately 17% of the total input energy needed to reduce one mole of hydrogen (or 48.7 kJ) is contributed by the environment as heat, an "ideal" electrolytic cell could be considered to have a peak theoretical efficiency of (285.83 kJ) / (237.13 kJ) = 120.5% electrically!
    Now, if we were able to apply the ideal electrolytic cell's output product directly to an ideal 83%-efficient fuel cell whereby the 'waste' heat is NOT recovered, the chain efficiency is still nicely 100%. However, it is interesting to note that if that fuel cell waste heat WAS in fact recovered AND thermoelectrically reconverted to electricity at over 84% efficiency, we could achieve an over-unity chain electrical efficiency of (1.205)(0.84) > 101.22%!]
 
    We can now use the electrical energy requirement figure given above to readily verify just the cost of buying the electricity used in electrolyzing an amount of H2 having potential energy equal to one gallon of gasoline, from water, as follows:  

  (a) 1 kWh (kilowatt-hour) equals 1,000 J/sec × 3,600 sec = 3.6 million joules;  

  (b) 237.13 kJ/mole ÷ 3.6 MJ/kWh = 0.06587 kWh/mole;  

  (c) 1 kilogram of H2 is approximately equal to 1 gallon of gasoline in its available energy content, given equality of conversion efficiency [for a comprehensive and well-done Hydrogen Energy Equivalence table, ref.: www.hionsolar.com/n-heq1.html];  

  (d) since 1 mole of H2 weighs 2 grams, 1 gallon of gasoline is therefore equivalent to 500 moles of H2;  

  (e) thus, the electric power required to electrolyze the hydrogen equivalent to 1 gallon of gasoline is equal to (500 moles) × (0.06587 kWh/mole) = 32.935 kWh, and the approximate cost of that power = (32.935 kWh) (@ 13.5¢/kWh) = $4.45 per 'gallon-equivalent' (or "gge"), using our power bill's cost / kWh! [This is actually a fairly realistic computation, since commercial and industrial customers typically pay at least what residential users do for day-rate power. It should be noted, however, that night-rate power is now typically 45 to 53% of the day-rate price – which would proportionally but dissimilarly affect the electrolysis-based cost-per-gallon equivalence computations below, case-by-case!]  

[Notes on hydrogen/gasoline energy equivalence: Take care when referring to the Hydrogen Equivalence Table cited above, especially when converting whole units of the other energy sources to their equivalent volume (and form) of hydrogen! The following handy relationships can be readily derived from the Table: (i) since 1 kg of H2 ~ 1.04 gallons of gasoline,  then 1  gallon of gasoline ~ 961.5 grams of  H2; (ii) since 1 gallon of liquid H2 ~ 0.279 gal. of gasoline, then 3.584 gal. of liquid H2 ~ 1 gallon of gasoline; and (iii) liquid H2 weighs only 0.59 lbs. per gallon.
 
    However, it is important to remember at this point that this figure does not include any of the other end-user costs associated with the manufacture of the 'gallon equivalent' we're considering here (i.e., infrastructure & equipment, labor, debt service, and total mark-up)! We saw earlier that the end-user price per gallon of liquid H2 as produced by the electrolysis of water is about $4.50, and that it takes 3.584 gal. of H2 to equal the energy in 1 gal. of gasoline. So, much like the electric utilities typically charging the retail customer about 3.5 times their input energy (fuel) cost per kWh for electricity, we could reasonably figure that the end-user price of water-electrolyzed liquid H2 for our fuel cell cars (if they require that form) would actually be about that same factor higher even than today's input energy cost, at 3.584 x $4.45 or an incredible unadjusted retail price of $15.95 per gge!!
 
    Fortunately, we have not taken the relative efficiencies of fuel cells and internal combustion engines into consideration! Although an "ideal" fuel cell would be 83% efficient, in reality practical fuel cells have a net efficiency of about 66%. Assuming for the sake of convenience that the average automobile engine runs at an efficiency of 33% (which is fairly accurate), the end-user price we carefully estimated above is actually reduced by 50% – to a very realisitic net figure of $7.98 per gallon-equivalent of liquid H2. [Thus, it is easy to see that any feasible and realistic hydrogen-energy transportation infrastructure must be predicated on attaining the system's highest possible "chain" (series sub-systems) efficiency!] 

    Certainly, many of you may still be shocked by what would seem to be the outrageous and perhaps insupportable cost basis of an attempted total conversion to a hydrogen fuel cell transportation-energy infrastructure. Given H2 produced by water electrolysis and a current U.S. average price-per-gallon for gasoline of $3.59, the consumers' price "at the pump" to operate their fuel cells car would be roughly ^Δ 2.22 times higher! If the hydrogen was made by steam reformation of methane, the equivalent fuel cost would "only" be about 1.67 times more than our current price for gasoline (or $5.99 /gge) but our extant natural gas reserves would be depleted just that much faster. Even with H2 manufactured by electrolysis of methanol, fuel costs would still be 1.11 times higher (or $3.98 /gge) and require intensified coal mining and gasification. [The gge cost ratios just cited proportionally reflect, by production process type, the updated hydrogen price per gallon figures provided in the introduction section above.]
 
    It is clear that the great beneficial impact our company's over-unity StarDrive Generator technology could have on the price of commercial H2 would be to eliminate most of the cost of the electric power ($4.45/gge) required to electrolyze hydrogen from water! For instance, to reduce input cost by 9 times, we could raise the 'coefficient of performance' (COP, or efficiency in decimal form) of the initial electric power generation system from an average of ~ 0.50 to 4.50. This would also yield a price of $5.99 per end-user gallon-equivalent as derived from above – effectively reducing the price of hydrogen by 25% – which isn't that much more than Europeans are paying per gallon for gasoline now! But any further cost reduction would be dependent on economy-of-scale in an expanded H2 processing, transportation, and distribution system – and perhaps on that system's governmental regulation. Nevertheless, the obvious benefits of making pure hydrogen from water would be realized, at a cost commensurate with steam reformation of methane. [It should be noted here that even the U.S. Dept. of Energy projects that completing the transition to a hydrogen energy system would take over 50 years.]  

   The summa "Methanol-from-Coal Final Report" [pdf, 118 pgs., 767kB] released by the University of Florida in April 2004 had this to state about water electrolysis and the 'hydrogen economy': "Water is obviously a virtually unlimited feedstock for the production of hydrogen [fuel]. Unfortunately, producing hydrogen in this manner requires more electrical energy input in . . . production than can be reclaimed through the utilization of the chemical energy available in hydrogen as a fuel. Therefore, an inexpensive and bountiful source of electricity would be required to harvest hydrogen from water in the magnitudes required to fulfill the expected requirements of the 'hydrogen economy'."  

    Given the U.S.'s vast coal reserves and our government's proven support of "Clean Coal Technology", it appears that a long-term plan exists which calls for producing fuel cell hydrogen via coal gasification and methanol electrolysis. In that case, consumer H2 prices "at the pump" would effectively be  $3.98 ^Δ per gallon-equivalent, based on those cost ratios shown above.  While this is still far too high a per-unit price to garner much public support, the time is coming when our 'gas' itself will cost as much or more. However, if our StarDrive Generator can in fact operate at a COP = 4.50** (which we actually expect to equal or exceed), that methanol-based price per gallon-equivalent could  be reduced  to "only" $2.99. But, the big drawback of such an energy program is a corresponding increased dependence on coal!  

^Δ It must be remembered that the price-per-gal.-equiv. figures developed above for the electrolytic cases could be substantially reduced proportional to any operative discount on electric power from the retail rate. However, these same price figures represent only net "production process" expenses and the typical mark-up thereon, and do not include basic infrastructure costs!
    For example, the corresponding way of estimating an accurate minimum cost per gallon-equivalent for hydrogen produced by methanol electrolysis is as follows:  From the NASA reference, it can be shown that methanol may be electrolyzed 3 times more efficiently than water, and so we could simply add 1/3 of the calculated electricity-cost of a water gallon-equivalent (or $4.45/3 = $1.48) to the now generally-accepted user-price/gal.equiv. for the methanol "feedstock" (or $1.77) as produced by coal gasification, for a total methanol-based hydrogen cost/gal.equiv. of "only" $1.48 + 1.77 = $3.25 –– this being an 'at the pump' price only in respect of the said incomplete cost basis, assuming on-board electrolysis of the methanol.
    But, these consumer prices could only be held to the extent that infrastructure costs unaccounted for thus far are offset by a discount on the electric power used in the electrolytic processes! Moreover, water electrolysis has a tremendous advantage in hydrogen production over methanol electrolysis in just that respect, for its basic production process requires only water and electricity (and no mining) with far less expense and infrastructure. Even so, we at AESI do not see how the water-based electrolytic hydrogen production scenario can possibly be competitive with methanol electrolysis, in final analysis, unless its associated large-scale infractructure costs are at least 3.73 times lower in comparison — and that would perforce require using an "inexpensive source of bountiful electricity" such as our StarDrive Generator!
 ** For a brief discussion of our prototype 24 kW StarDrive Generator's design, operating theory and projected COP, click here.

›››  In conclusion, an excellent way to further illustrate the costly problems to be encountered in trying to make a hydrogen energy system "work" is to figure its overall efficiency. To wit:  if our present electric power generation systems have an average efficiency of 50%, and both electrolytic cells and fuel cells are accurately taken to be 66% efficient, then the overall efficiency of a hydrogen energy system based on these technologies is only (50%) × (66%) × (66%) or 22% in current practice!  By the same method, in utilizing a 'StarDrive' Electrodynamic Field Generator whose COP is 'only' 4.50** the overall efficiency of such a system becomes 4.5 × 66% × 66% or 198% – and that system as a whole would still be operating over-unity...

<> For further reference: As reported in a recent Nature magazine article ("Hydrogen Economy Looks Out of Reach" by Mark Peplow, Oct. 7, 2004), a British economist has calculated that converting every vehicle in the United States to hydrogen power would require so much electricity that the country would need enough wind turbines to cover half the state of California or as many as 1,000 extra nuclear power stations. "This calculation is useful to make people realize what an enormous problem we face," says Andrew Oswald, of the University of Warwick.
    Oswald's brother Jim, an energy consultant who assisted in the calculation, says "Today, hydrogen (H2) is not a clean, green fuel." Electrolysis, the only technology that can currently make large amounts of hydrogen without using fossil fuels, is totally reliant on renewable energy sources (e.g., wind, solar, and hydro) or nuclear power to do so, the Oswalds maintain, and hydrogen will only help mitigate global warming when a clean source of H2 becomes available.
    "I don't think we'll ever have a true hydrogen economy. The outlook is extremely bleak," Jim says. "Hydrogen is not a near-term prospect," agrees Paul Ekins, an energy economist at the Policy Studies Institute in London. There will have to be a few fundamental breakthroughs in technology first, he says, and politicians eager to promote their green credentials – yet unaware of the realities – have oversold the hydrogen dream.
    For a broader and more shocking picture of the potentially catastrophic energy crisis we soon face at the end of the "Oil Age", you may wish to visit (or not) Matt Savinar's Life After the Oil Crash website: be forewarned, though, it's definitely not pretty! Any American who has not read this material may be terribly unprepared for the 'Time of Troubles' to come . . . 

› For more information about fuel cells, particularly the promising new solid oxide variant now under development through NASA-funded research, please visit this Science@NASA webpage. 

›› For a brief but eye-opening report about government-sponsored efforts to develop fuel cells that run directly on syngas (H2/CO), a product of coal gasification, see this SpaceDaily.com energy-tech page. 

››› As an additional reference, it is interesting to note that the Electrochemical Engineering Research Laboratory (EERL) at Ohio University (Athens) is working on the development of a new technology for the production of hydrogen in-situ from the electrolysis of ammonia. Researchers maintain that ammonia is easily condensed at ambient temperature, which makes it a good choice for transportation and storage, and has a specific energy density (kWh/l) that's 50% higher than liquefied hydrogen.
    Moreover, its decomposition by electro-oxidation in alkaline media at low overpotentials is NOx and COx free, with nitrogen and water as the by-products of reaction, and theoretically the electrolysis of ammonia may consume as much as 95% less energy than a water electrolyzer per unit mass of H2 produced. Novel electrocatalysts, made by electrodeposition of noble metals on carbon fibers, are employed to enhance the oxidation of ammonia in alkaline medium. See: "Electrolysis of Ammonia: an in-Situ Hydrogen Production Process", by G. G. Botte, L. Benedetti, and J. Gonzalez; Ohio University.  

    A similar interesting but non-electrolytic reference is John E. Brandenburg's recent U.S. patent [7,037,484] for a "Plasma reactor for cracking ammonia and hydrogen-rich gases to hydrogen". The preferred embodiment of the technology comprises separating a resonant cavity into two compartments with a dielectric diaphragm, injecting hydrogen-bearing gases like ammonia into one compartment while generating electromagnetic energy from an antenna, microwave generator, or waveguide into the other compartment so that a plasma discharge is formed in the cavity, whereby hydrogen gas can be selectively released from a discharge port therein. A principal objective of the invention is to provide a process and system to generate hydrogen on demand from an easily storable source gas such as ammonia by breaking down that gas in one pass completely with nearly all of the heat produced going into the ammonia so that very little heat escapes the system.

 *  *  *  *  * 
Your serious comments and questions are welcome: feedback@stardrivedevice.com 

‹‹‹ to 'StarDrive Engineering' home page    to Energy Systems page    top ^

Copyright ©2004–2008 Mark R. Tomion, Pres., Archer Energy Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Site hosting by The Gain Company