Is Oregon's Sustainable Energy Policy Unsustainable?

Two funding priorities in Oregon's subsidy system have lined up for a head-on collision as outlined by a recent article in the Portland Tribune.

http://portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=128579295581531200

The first funding priority; bring alternative energy jobs into the state. What this has amounted to primarily is manufacturing jobs. Two of the biggest wins on this front are Solar World and Vestas. Granted these are foreign companies, but they have set up significant presence on US soil right here in Oregon: Solar World has a growing manufacturing arm, and Vestas has set up its North American headquarters for sales and service.

Some of the other companies that have been enticed into Oregon thanks to our political leader's actions include other solar manufacturing, Biomass ventures, small electric vehicle manufacturing, and fuel-cell ventures. The list of companies as of 2009 was encouraging. This past year hasn't seen much change in the list, and I am a bit discouraged by this.

The second funding priority; bring alternative energy sources online. These two priorities would seem to work hand-in-hand at first glance, since one works the supply side, and the other works the demand side. The problem lies in that the demand side of this equation does nothing to prevent an end-run around the supply side. What I mean is that if there are suppliers out there that have lower cost options than the locally supplied versions, the consumer taking advantage of the second funding option has no incentive to buy locally. Seems somehow counterproductive and unsustainable if you ask me.

So the time to act is now! Those of us in Oregon who prefer to see other working Oregonians keep their jobs must step up and DO something! Oregon's congress needs to put on their thinking-caps and figure out a way to keep state money productive toward state jobs... but without their constituents raising the clarion call clear and loud, other Salem noise will drown out this message. I am calling on each of you, my friends and family here in Oregon to write a note to Salem, call, or text... whatever... in order to raise the awareness that we want our state money to NOT go to more in-humane condition Chinese manufacturing.

Who is with me?

Carbon; the Great Hydrogen Tamer!

The more I look at Carbon, the more amazed I am at its versatility and utility. We know carbon in many of its forms from the exotic and mesmerizing diamond, to its simple plastic, and finally to its many forms of fuel we call hydrocarbons.

The technical reason for Carbon's utility is that it has 4 locations for bonding to other elements, including itself. Hydrocarbons come in 2 forms, Aromatic and Alkane. Aromatic is more dense form of hydrocarbon since its center is formed of a carbon ring. Pretty nifty, but for our purposes it tends to disqualify itself as a fuel, while making a great glue and is excellent at keeping moths away from your clothes ... among other things.

Alkanes:
The most simplistic form of hydrocarbon is methane with its single Carbon atom saturated with four hydrogen. Light-weight, powerful, and emits the least amount of Carbon when burned than any of the other hydrocarbons. Next is the little-mentioned Ethane with 2 Carbons and 6 hydrogen, followed by Propane and Butane, each adding another Carbon and 2 hydrogen.

Since I cannot draw the organization of the molecule here, I'll simply post a link for a visual aid.

As one ponders the larger of the molecules, it becomes easier to comprehend that the larger the molecule, the more Carbon there is in the ratio. Methane has a 4:1 hydrogen to Carbon ratio, and Butane 10:4, or simplified 5:2. It is also easy to notice that these are all gasses at room temperature, but what is not as easy to spot is that the lighter-weight of the gaseous hydrocarbon are also the least dense. Chilling or compressing the gas becomes necessary for transportation ... or the gas can be piped. Either of these solutions are costly, but for the energy yield they are costs that can be overcome.

So where does gasoline fit in? Basically where the molecules become Carbon-laden enough to become liquid without compressing or chilling, that is above butane. The molecules of the hydrocarbon mixture in gasoline contain 5 to 10 Carbon. Then kerosene is in the 10 to 16 Carbon range. Diesel fuel and fuel oils are in this range as well, but contain solid hydrocarbon molecules with 17 Carbons on up.

Getting back to gasoline. Since the Carbon to Hydrogen ratio is becoming more equal, the hydrogen aspects of these molecules becomes less apparent, therefore easier to handle. After refining, there is no extra manipulation needed to use it ... other than to make a little effort to keep it from evaporating or leaking. These are less costly devices than pressurized or cooled tanks, or even piping over distances.

Products on the market today containing solid hydrocarbons with these heavy chains include petroleum jelly, paraffin wax, asphalt, detergents, cosmetics, plastics and more.

So if Carbon is such a great tamer of hydrogen, why have hydrocarbons recently become an ecological by-word? I think we all know the short answer to that, but I hope you will continue to follow my blog as I discuss this ... in my next post.

Thanks for taking the time to visit Hydrobooster!

Automotive Fuel Cell Evaluation

Be warned, the next sentence may cause your eyes to glaze over ... but the rest of the post will be better, I promise.

Yesterday was the first day of a week-long meeting entitled; "2009 DOE HYDROGEN PROGRAM and VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM ANNUAL MERIT REVIEW and PEER EVALUATION MEETING" Odd as this may sound, the meeting name is actually a longer than the URL, believe it or not.

Ok, you're probably asking the same thing I did ... what does it mean? If the reader will indulge me for a moment, perhaps I can shed some light. The DOE, NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) and the auto industry are validating automotive fuel cell technology including its infrastructure.

The most understandable information I could find on this was on the NREL's website where one may fine road-maps and milestones for the hydrogen economy, along with how the 7-year long project is performing to date.

As I'm sure most of us are aware that battery range on commuter cars is rather short when compared with even the smallest gasoline vehicle. Yet what the fuel cell vehicle has already accomplished is attained a practical 200 mile range ... not yet to the project's goal of over 300 miles, but showing a lot of promise!

So what are the goals of the Fuel Cell Learning Demonstration in which the DOE, Ford, Chrystler, GM, Hyundai-Kia and BP, Shell, and Chevron have all thrown a fair amount of money into? By 2015 they want to achieve:

1. Fuel Cell (FC) Stack Durability of 5,000 hours
2. Vehicle Range of 300 miles or more
3. Hydrogen Cost at Station of $2-3$ gge (Gallon of Gasoline Equivalent).
4. Consistent refueling times of 3 minutes (~5 kg H2 per tank).

This year, 2009, as it turns out, is a major milestone for this project, but first I must beg your indulgence of a quick digression just in case there are readers with little to no exposure to what a fuel cell vehicle is.

Think of an electricly propelled vehicle with a unique battery (sort of) that uses Hydrogen to generate electricity, and emits water as a byproduct and that would be the general idea.

So what is our major milepost here in 2009 and just how close are we to it?

Milepost criterion:

1. FC stack durability of 2000 hours.
2. 250+ miles of range.
3. $3 H2 cost at station.
4. 5 minute fill.
   

Accomplishments:

1. FC stack durability of 2000 hours theoretical and (nearly a reality as some of the early vehicles are approaching this mark without repair).
2. 250+ mile range met on dynomometer and sticker, but actual driving practices and fear of running out of fuel have reduced the practical range to 80% of dyno range. Practical range, therefore, is between 150 and 215 miles.
   
3. $3 H2 cost? I couldn't seem to find this. I guess the old addage ... 'if you have to ask you can't afford it' applies here. What I could discover is that H2 Fueling stations are rare even in the test areas, and efficiencies of natural gas steam reforming and electrolysis methods are still lower than benchmarks, but both are climbing. Efficiency translates to cost, therefore I can only assume that it's still more costly than the equivalent in gasoline.
4. Fill times have come down, but currently only 25% of fills are meeting goal of 1 kg per minute.

Final analysis ... even before this meeting concludes, the US Government has weighed in on the issue. While it still shows promise, results on the near-term are somewhat disappointing. The program hasn't been killed, but Stimulus funding has been re-focused as of May 7th. Secretary Chu announced that two forms of energy assistance will be cut while many forms of subsidies toward energy are being boosted; Deep Water Drilling, and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles.

To quote my favorite muppet from Star Wars: "Disappoint this is, and unfortunate." Yet as fiscally liberal as the Federal Government has shown itself to be, I suppose it has to show constraint somewhere. From an immediate-gains standpoint, it does make sense. I just hope it isn't the death-knell to another future US industry; allowing Europe to take the edge in yet another alternative energy market.

Book Review: Hydrogen -- Hot Stuff :: Cool Science

I just finished reading this fascinating book by Rex A Ewing. I feel I must warn you, though, if you're looking for a dry and boring text book, you should look somewhere else. In Hydrogen -- Hot Stuff :: Cool Science, Mr. Ewing has fused together the adventure novel and science in a way that is both delightfully funny and intruigingly factual.

Included are 18 chapters and a prolog and epilog with the following energy technologies discussed:

Hydrogen as fuel used the following ways:

• Combustion
• Fuel Cell
• Fusion

Nuclear Fission

Wind

Solar

The following Biomass fuels:

• Biodiesel
• Ethanol
• Methanol

Coal Gasification

Pyrolysis

Electricity

While discussing all of these energy techs, the following science basics are discussed (among others):

• Molecular bonds
• Why water is different than other molecules of its size and weight
• Fusion
• Fission
• Global Warming (the fact and the hype revealed)
• Gasification
• Fuel Stock Relative Energy
• Photosynthisis

Graphs I found interesting and informative detailed CO2 levels with respect to temperature and another one where CO2 levels were compared with human population growth. And most intriguing of all was the one that showed estimated cost of making hydrogen comparing several different methods.

What I found refreshing about the book was Rex's honest appraisal of hydrogen's current shortfalls as well as touting its strengths. Some of the current problems ranged from small-scale storage as in fuel tanks on a vehicle to generation of H2 to current fuel cell costs and failure modes.

As I was analysing the considerable information, I realized, however, that I would have liked to have seen more information about battery technology as well as methods of Carbon sequestering, but I suppose when the book's purpose is to discuss the up-coming Hydrogen Economy, those topics are better left to a different book.

Between each chapter, there was a section called 'Technistoff' which frequently gave hyperlinks to news articles, research papers, or product web pages in order to show how viable and documented the information actually is.

So why did I choose to read this book? Two reasons: I was looking for information on how fuel cell works, and also looking for more information toward improving my hydrogen electrolysis project as I've discussed in previous posts.

What I read therein was awesome to the first end, but troubling to the second end. What I mean is this: Rex dedicated an entire chapter to describing the workings of a feul cell, but when he spoke about using hydrogen in an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) his recommendation was to re-engineer the ICE due to the complications that come with a more simplistic conversion. And he didn't even discuss using on-board hydrogen generation method to supplement gasoline.

Guess that just goes to show that he didn't consult me before he wrote his book.... which is probably a good thing.

He did, however, give a book recommendation for engine conversion: Fuel from Water: Energy Independence with Hydrogen by Michael A. Peavey.

All-in-all I was quite pleased with this book. It will take me some time to work through all the diverse links it has pointed to as I continue seeking the truth behind the Alternate Energy Hype.

Take care, one and all!

Green Jobs: A New Hope for America?

Tuesday, April 21st, US secretary of Labor, Hilda L. Solis, spoke before congress. Her statement may be found here.

Unemployment is certainly a hot topic right now with many US States entering the double digit zone, so those of us who have lost a job recently, or may soon loose our job, should sit up and listen to what the US Labor secretary is saying ... and evaluate. My own job is in jeopardy since the factory I work in is aging and has posted a shut-down time-frame near the end of the year. Call me a skilled laborer whose current position has little to do with green energy, yet I make a decent family wage and ... many of my skills are directly transferable to green manufacturing.

Ms. Solis made the following statement;

"For instance, many green jobs are in the construction trades, and these jobs tend to pay above average wages. The May 2007 Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates published by BLS indicate that construction and extraction occupations pay a median hourly rate of $17.57 as opposed to $15.10 for all occupations. Therefore, we can expect that many green jobs will pay 10 percent to 20 percent better than other jobs"

Undoubtedly this statement on its face is factual. And yet I wonder if it is fallacious as an apples to oranges (or perhaps fruit in general) comparison by saying that a median hourly rate of construction workers needed for green jobs is higher than the median of 'all occupations'. What I want to know is how does the median green construction job compare to non-green.

What has sparked me to ask this question is that I have been comparing my own skill-set green to non-green and found green to be lacking, much as I wish it were otherwise. So since her wage analysis in this instance is made on one data point that is somewhat lacking in statistical meaning, I find it hard to give her conclusion of 10 to 20% better pay much merit. It would only be worth mentioning if the construction industry were already hard at work making the median wage, thereby requiring the green construction workers to be pulled out of the lower-wage job markets. But we all know that construction has been significantly impacted by the economy. Therefore, we need to re-employ those have already been making better than median paying jobs, but are simply out of work ... and have been for some time now.

Sorry, Madam Secretary, I'm not buying the premise nor your conclusion.

Moving down the page a bit she adds;

For its part, the Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has already made available $3.47 billion in Recovery Act funds to support workforce investment activities. Such activities include retraining dislocated workers, summer employment for youth and community service employment for low-income seniors.

Good. The Trade Agreements Act (TAA) of 1979 did this already, but was limited in scope to people whose jobs were shipped overseas. I look forward to seeing how this plays out. I cannot help but wonder, however, if a dislocated worker desiring to become an Engineer (which are in high demand in the green energy market right now) will be able to tap into this funding for higher education since there is such a need there ... or will it merely be a lateral type of re-training program? Most likely there will be no funds for moving up, rather only for lateral re-training.

Finally, Ms. Solace evoked the Vice Presidents own words in a manner that caused me to cringe based on what I know and fear;

At our recent Middle Class Task Force meeting in Philadelphia, Vice President Biden stated that 'we'll measure our success, whether it's four years or eight years by one thing: If we can raise the standard of living for middle-class people.' We cannot ignore the disconnect that persisted between economic growth and middle-class incomes even when the economy was strong. I am committed to ensuring that both diversity and inclusion are reflected in the federal funding of green jobs workforce training.

Madam Secretary of Labor, and Mr. Vice President, for all of our sakes, I sincerely hope you both have a firmer grasp on this problem than this article would imply that you do, or rather do not.

In conclusion, I would like to say; no doubt we will find our way out of this mess (both economically and energy independence-wise). But let us not look solely to the governemnt to fix it. Our nation was built by people who were fiercly independent; those who were at once capable of standing on their own two feet in adversity, as well as generous enough to help a neighbor in need. I submit that that same spirit will see us through these difficult times more than dependence on a stimulus bill that from certain angles appears to be inadequate to the need, and from other angles looks to be dauntingly large.

HydroBooster signing out and encouraging everyone to be good to each other.

Spring! A time of new beginnings ... I hope

Where to begin again?

First, I must confess that I was a bit discouraged by the results my hydrogen cell was yielding. It seemed that no matter how high the current draw, my fuel economy remained the same. I suppose that should be something worth cheering since a continual 30A load on my alternator was not costing me a dime .... other than parts.

Secondly, the parts ... PVC pipe does not want to weld very well to different plastic formulated fittings. Before winter set on, I was seeing healthy deposits of KOH (Potassium Hydroxide) forming around those joints.

Oh well. Lessons learned.

So as winter set on, I resigned myself to turning off a water-based system in freezing weather that wasn't making any gains and might likely go solid anyway. But what I have done is read ... a lot.

I am now thinking that vaporized water (read steam) passed over a catalyst may be simultaneously less caustic and an easier system to design since there will be no electrical circuit, nor electronics, with the possible exception of a level sensor down the line somewhere. The down side is that of the two catalysts I know of, Zinc is the least expensive, but likely requires the higher heat. The other catalyst I am still researching, so I'll save that for a future post. Nevertheless, I haven't totally given up on hydrolysis. I still have some materials left over from when I purchased the original stuff ... and I have an electronic device partially built which may aid in reducing and controlling current flow while maintaining a high level of hydrogen/oxygen generation.

I hope you will stay tuned.

8/14 Update on my Hydro Boost unit

Mechanical and electrical basic connections complete! The unit is operational and pumping gas into the intake manifold. I've installed a switch and an ammeter so I have some control, but the pulse width modulator hasn't yet been built or installed.

I hope to have milage results in a week or two. A couple of caveats: Since I've not yet put the PWM into the circuit, I'm not willing to let it run too hot; and I may have to move my injection port into the vacuum rather than between the filter and the throttle body.

Cold start up is 10 amps and I've seen it run up to 15 amps in a short time. Sunday I'll be driving a 60 mile round trip, so I may have to shut it off if the amps get too high due to thermal run away.

My project box arrived today so I'll start building the PWM ... hopefully that will be a realatively trouble-free activity.