Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-qsmjn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:32:37.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Solar–Hydrogen Energy System: The Choice of the Future

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

T. Nejat Veziroglu  and
Frano Barbir
Frano Barbir
Affiliation:
Respectively Director & Research Assistant, Clean Energy Research Institute, College of Engineering, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

As a result of the foregoing study, the following conclusions are reached: (A) The solar–hydrogen energy system is environmentally far more compatible than the fossil-fuel system; it is actually the only solution for the carbon-dioxide-induced ‘greenhouse’ effect and its threatening consequences. (B) The utilization efficiencies of hydrogen are greater than those of fossil and synthetic fossil fuels; therefore, in the hydrogen-energy system, less energy will be required to perform the same services. (C) The solar-hydrogen energy system is the most cost-effective system if effective costs (the costs which society pays for the energy services) are taken into account. It is not only more cost-effective than the synthetic fossil-fuel system—it is even more cost-effective than the present fossil-fuel system. (D) Clean coal technologies could be used for thermal-energy generation, satisfying approximately 30% of the world's total energy needs. Such a system, which employs coal for thermal-energy generation, and hydrogen from renewable energy sources in electricity generation and transportation sectors, would be the least-cost energy system for the transition period. (E) Transition to the solar–hydrogen energy system could help to save our economy and our planet.

The fuels that are being most favourably considered for the post-petroleum and natural-gas era, namely hydrogen (both gaseous and liquid) and coal and coal-derived synthetic fluid fossil-fuels, have been compared in this paper by taking into account production costs, external costs, and utilization efficiencies. The results show that hydrogen is a much more cost-effective energy carrier than coal or synthetic fossil-fuels. At the same time, and most importantly by far from our viewpoint, it is the most environmentally compatible of all.

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , Winter 1991 , pp. 304 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Annual Energy Outlook (1990). Long Term Projections. Energy Information Administration, US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA: 66 pp.Google Scholar
Barbir, F. & Veziroglu, T.N. (1990). Environmental damage due to fossil fuel use. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 15(10), pp. 739–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barklay, J. (1991). Magnetic Liquefaction of Hydrogen. Presented at the DoE/SERI Hydrogen Program Review Meeting, Washington, DC, USA: [not included in published proceedings].Google Scholar
Billings, R.E. & Saunders, M. (1990). Automotive Hydrogen Fuel Cell. Presented at the 8th World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: [not included in published proceedings].Google Scholar
Bockris, J. O'M. & Veziroglu, T.N. (1985). A solar-hydrogen energy system for environmental compatibility, Environmental Conservation, 12(2), pp. 105–18, 2 figs and 6 tables.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bockris, J.O'M. & Was, J.C. (1988). About the real economics of massive hydrogen production at 2010 AD. Pp. 101–51 in Hydrogen Energy Progress VII, Vol. 1 (Eds Veziroglu, T.N. & Protsenko, A.N.). Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, UK: [not available for checking].Google Scholar
Brewer, G.D. (1991). Hydrogen Aircraft Technology, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA: 430 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Chen, D.Z., Gurkan, I., Veziroglu, T.N. & Sheffield, J.W. (1982). Effective cost of fuels: comparison of hydrogen with fossil fuels. Pp. 1523–37 in Hydrogen Energy Progress TV, Vol. 4 (Eds Veziroglu, T.N., Van Vorst, W.D. & Kelley, J.H.). Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, UK: [not available for checking].Google Scholar
Davis, G.R. (1990). Energy for Planet Earth, Scientific American, 263(3), pp. 55–62, illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeLucra, M. (1989). Hydrogen vehicles: an evaluation of fuel storage, performance, safety, environmental impacts, and cost. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 14(2), pp. 81–130.Google Scholar
Fulkerson, W., Judkins, R.J. & Sanghvi, M.K. (1990). Energy from fossil fuels. Scientific American, 263(3), pp. 129–35, illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haruta, M., Souma, Y. & Sano, H. (1982). Catalytic combustion of hydrogen. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 7(9), pp. 729–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kordesch, K. & Oliveira, J.C.T. (1988). Fuel cells: the present state of the technology and future applications, with special consideration of the alkaline hydrogen/oxygen (air) systems. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 13(7), pp. 703–16, illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledjeff, K. (1990). New hydrogen appliances. Pp. 1429–44 in Hydrogen Energy Progress VIII, Vol. 3 (Eds Veziroglu, T.N. & Takahashi, P.K.). Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, UK: [not available for checking].Google Scholar
Moore, R.B. & Nahmias, D. (1991). Gaseous hydrogen markets and technologies. Pp. 1–17 in Proceedings: Transition Strategies to Hydrogen as an Energy Carrier — First Annual Meeting of the US National Hydrogen Association. Prepared by Technology Transition Corporation, Washington, DC, USA: [not available for checking].Google Scholar
Ogden, J.M. & Williams, R.H. (1989). Solar Hydrogen: Moving Beyond Fossil Fuels. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA: vii + 123 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Peschka, W. (1988). Technologies for the energetic use of hydrogen, Pp. 30–55 in Hydrogen as an Energy Carrier. (Eds Winter, C.J. & Nitsch, J.). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany: xii + 377 pp., illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherif, S.A., (1991). Analysis and Optimization of Hydrogen Liquefaction and Storage Systems. Proc. DoE/SERI Hydrogen Program Review Meeting, Washington, DC, USA: [no page numbers: prepared by SERI, Golden, Colorado, USA].Google Scholar
Steinberg, M. & Cheng, H.C. (1988). Modern and prospective technologies for hydrogen production from fossil fuels. Pp. 699–739 in Hydrogen Energy Progress VII, Vol. 2 (Eds Veziroglu, T.N. & Protsenko, A.N.). Pergamon Press, Oxford, England, UK [not available for checking].Google Scholar
Sternfeld, H.J. & Heinrich, P. (1989). A demonstration plant for the hydrogen/oxygen spinning reserve. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, 14(10), pp. 703–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R.H. (1985). Potential roles for bioenergy in an energy-efficient World. Ambio, 14, No. 405, pp. 201–9.Google Scholar