Safety worries cloud Japan's dream of carbon-free hydrogen society

“There is no way we are turning out a profit in, say, five or 10 years,”

Which means the taxpayers will make up the difference by way of government subsidies. Those of us who cannot afford 7 million yen for a fuell cell car, or buy hydrogen fuel will be coughing up subsidies for those few who can. Japan is certainly an adherent to corporate welfare.

They should focus on using methane - much more eco friendly.

They should focus on using methane - much more eco friendly.

You have it backwards - hydrogen is much more eco friendly. Methane is a major greenhouse gas. The only issue with hydrogen is safety in storage and handling....

PandabelleSep. 17, 2014 - 04:07PM JST

They should focus on using methane - much more eco friendly.

You have it backwards - hydrogen is much more eco friendly. Methane is a major greenhouse gas. The only issue with hydrogen is safety in storage and handling....

Actually you have it backwards and Kaerimashita is correct.

Hydrogen is mostly produced from fossil fuels - fossil fuels store a lot of CO2 that is safely locked away, so every unit of hydrogen comes at the cost of an increase in greenhouse gases.

Methane is available in large quantities from fertilizer heaps (i.e. every single rubbish dump in Japan), sewerage stations, and stock farms (pigs, cows, etc.). If even a small quantity of this methane is trapped and converted we'll have a net decrease in greenhouse gases.

Those are the options here: Hydrogen production => MORE greenhouse gases. Methane processing => LESS greenhouse gases.

“People are concerned about safety after the incident at nuclear plant,” Yet the nuclear industry and government are going to restart those dangers anyway. It appears they want to highlight the dangers of using hydrogen, while nuclear power has that and much more!

Hydrogen is mostly produced from fossil fuels

That's not the only way to produce hydrogen. And CO2 release can be mitigated using CCS technologies, though these are still new.

Methane IS a greenhouse gas. There's inherent risk in its production. Technology such as methane hydrate extraction is indeed quite promising - and if successful Japan would be a world leader in energy production due to the sheer abundance of methane hydrate offshore Japan - but it's certainly risky. Much riskier than storage of hydrogen, I should think.

methane is already being used in trucks which have the LNG stickers. another name for methane is just natural gas.

using natural gas in cars still produces pollution, whereas FCV release zero pollution; hence their "eco-friendly" name-tag.

and frungy, you're only talking about production, but once the methane is burned it also creates GHG.

What? .... And petrol (gasoline) doesn't explode?

PandabelleSep. 17, 2014 - 04:44PM JST That's not the only way to produce hydrogen. And CO2 release can be mitigated using CCS technologies, though these are still new.

All hydrogen producing technologies are net CO2 producers, either directly though extracting the hydrogen from fossil fuels, or indirectly from the CO2 cost of the electricity used.

Methane IS a greenhouse gas. There's inherent risk in its production.

No, there isn't. You ignored my post entirely, which is extremely rude. Had you actually read what I posted you would have noted that I was proposing using existing methane sources like methane produced from refuse and other natural sources.

Much riskier than storage of hydrogen, I should think.

No. Methanol fuel is 19.7 MJ/kg. Hydrogen is 142 MJ/kh. This makes hydrogen 7 times more dangerous than methanol fuel per kg.

Yeah, they have quite a long way to go to prove the safety of hydrogen gas stands. I wouldn't like to be living near one. It's up to the engineers to convince people they are safe. It's one thing to say they are safe, but it's another thing o prove it.

Methane is one of the largest sources of carbon (greenhouse gas). It's the same gas produced by livestock, and surprisingly, by rice cultivation (another major source). The decomposition of plant matter under water while the rice fields are flooded, is a major source of methane.

Stand by for a cute little mascot - Haido-chan, and some cartoons showing how 'safe' it is. That's the usual way to convince people of safety here....

This would be carbon free if Japan went all nuclear...

scipantheistSep. 17, 2014 - 11:45PM JST This would be carbon free if Japan went all nuclear...

No, it wouldn't be. Uranium mining, transportation and processing before it can be used, the carbon cost of building the plant itself, they all add up to about 110 g CO2e/kWh.

By contrast:

Solar power: 18 g CO2e/kWh

Wind power: 8 g CO2e/kWh

Geothermal: 6 g CO2e/kWh

You're mistaken about nuclear power being carbon free. It isn't, and numerous studies have debunked this notion.

Fair enough, but I doubt Japan will be going 100% of any of those any time soon as they are probably more expensive if you don't have lots of land. And thanks for the thumbs down.

scipantheistSep. 18, 2014 - 01:11AM JST Fair enough, but I doubt Japan will be going 100% of any of those any time soon as they are probably more expensive if you don't have lots of land.

So your "logic" is that if they're not going 100% green then why bother going even 20% green? I'd love to see your idea of healthy eating... I mean if you're not going to eat healthy 100% of the time then why bother eating healthily even 20% of the time?

And thanks for the thumbs down.

You posted erroneous information and then get sarcastic about getting thumbs-downed for it? Tres pathetique.

Was not erroneous: it is the lowest CO2 emissions of currently widely used energy sources. Your proposal was to burn a bunch of methane. Something is pathetic all right.

Methane's formula is CH4. So the thumbs down are for being correct right?

Let's think outside the box of motor vehicles and more corporate welfare for the auto industry and go the way of Denmark by shifting heavily to bicycles by providing designated lanes, easy transport on trains and buses and more parking areas. Please somebody don't say sweat is a GHG.

Frungy.

All hydrogen producing technologies are net CO2 producers, either directly though extracting the hydrogen from fossil fuels, or indirectly from the CO2 cost of the electricity used.

Please explain the carbon cost of generating hydrogen via electrolysis. You can use wind/solar/geothermal/whatever you like to generate the electricity at little to no carbon cost. It ain't going to be efficient but it'll be clean.

No, there isn't. You ignored my post entirely, which is extremely rude. Had you actually read what I posted you would have noted that I was proposing using existing methane sources like methane produced from refuse and other natural sources.

Calm down there, I didn't ignore your post. How much methane could be produced using this sort of scheme? Not much, I would think. And it doesn't change the fact that methane is a greenhouse gas, does it?

No. Methanol fuel is 19.7 MJ/kg. Hydrogen is 142 MJ/kh. This makes hydrogen 7 times more dangerous than methanol fuel per kg.

What the heck does energy density have to do with "risk"? That's like saying wood is riskier than TNT because wood's energy density is ~16 MJ/kg and TNT's is but ~5 MJ/kg. I think you need to understand the terminology better, Frungy.

PandabelleSep. 18, 2014 - 11:28AM JST Please explain the carbon cost of generating hydrogen via electrolysis. You can use wind/solar/geothermal/whatever you like to generate the electricity at little to no carbon cost. It ain't going to be efficient but it'll be clean.

Except that Japan isn't using wind/solar/geothermal/whatever. It is using mostly fossil fuels, which means that right now naturally occurring methane is greener than manufactured hydrogen.

Calm down there, I didn't ignore your post. How much methane could be produced using this sort of scheme? Not much, I would think. And it doesn't change the fact that methane is a greenhouse gas, does it?

You didn't understand my post then:

Using methane and converting it by combustion into CO2 results in a net decrease in greenhouse gas levels. How to explain this simply. I take 1 kilogram of methane, and burn it, and release a lesser amount of CO2. In total there has been a decrease in greenhouse gas levels (1kg methane -> combusted in vehicle resulting in lesser amount of CO2). Manufacturing hydrogen and burning it results in multiple increases in greenhouse gas levels (1kg fossil fuels -> lesser amount of hydrogen through electrolysis + release of CO2 in both processing and from electricity consumption -> hydrogen combusted in vehicle --> more CO2 released).

There is more than adequate methane and it is a renewable and natural resource if we just tapped, for example, sewerage processing in a large city like Tokyo.

What the heck does energy density have to do with "risk"? That's like saying wood is riskier than TNT because wood's energy density is ~16 MJ/kg and TNT's is but ~5 MJ/kg. I think you need to understand the terminology better, Frungy.

If I was comparing wood and TNT then you might have a point... but you don't because the "rest energy" of methane and hydrogen is comparable.

Energy density is relevant because if put a match to a balloon full of methane and a balloon full of hydrogen the explosion from the hydrogen would be about 7 times bigger.

You stated that methane would be more risky to store than hydrogen. You're mistaken and the energy density demonstrates that. A tank of a ton of hydrogen would be 7 times more dangerous than a tank filled with a ton of methane.

You were mistaken, as you have been about virtually everything where you add "I would think".

I think the station will be safe, it's like the air compressor stations for the air car here in the States and quiet as it is kept... The Fukushima Daiichi accident may have had another trigger other than water depletion with the said resulting hydrogen explosion....