The Blind Men Visit The Elephant

Report from the Hearing on H.R. 4160,
Rick Renzi’s
“Grand Canyon Hydrogen-Powered Motorboat Demonstration Act of 2004”
Shrine of the Ages, May 15th, 2004
Recently, Congressmen George Radanovich (r–Mariposa, ca) and Rick Renzi (r–Northern Arizona) listened to testimony on “Hydrogen Fuel Cell Technology in the National Park System” from gcnp Superintendent Joe Alston, gcroa Executive Director Mark Grisham, and officials from the u.s. Dept. of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Hualapai Tribe, and other academic and corporate institutions involved in R & D of Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology.
The “briefing paper” in the press packet began with the following paragraph:
“Hydrogen accounts for 90% of the universe’s weight. It is found in water, which covers about 70% of the earth. This makes hydrogen one of the most abundant gas and simplest element in the universe. Despite hydrogen’s abundance and simple form, it does not occur naturally on Earth in its gaseous state. Therefore, energy is required to produce hydrogen. It is believed that the hydrogen fuel cell will serve as a viable energy source in the future.”
If you perceive the non-sequitur in the conclusion of this paragraph, your understanding of the “hydrogen economy” exceeds that of members of Congress and some of the “experts” called to testify in support of this proposed legislation.
In its most sophisticated form, hydrogen fuel cell technology can store energy from another source, and release it as electricity for use later, with only water vapor and heat as the byproducts of this catalytically mediated “chemical combustion.” But more energy goes into making hydrogen fuel than is recovered when it is used to produce electricity: “hydrogen power” is a net consumer of energy, not an energy source. And just as taking energy out of a conventional battery is “clean,” while there is pollution, waste, and cost in some other less visible location (in manufacturing, charging, and disposal of the equipment), in a similar way the “clean energy” of fuel cells conceals the costs, pollution, and inefficiencies of the total system, which are conveniently shifted out of sight to another location.
All the witnesses had good things to say about the importance of clean, efficient, renewable sources of energy, reducing pollution and our dependence on fossil fuels and (in particular) foreign oil, and the advantages of alternative technology.
•The nps feels it’s important to demonstrate clean, alternative technologies and would even be happy to pay for them, provided the cost could be made competitive with the more conventional alternatives.
•The Dept. of Energy thinks hydrogen powered fuel cells are great, and would be practical if we could reduce the cost of making hydrogen fuel (x4), reduce the cost of fuel cell power plants (x10) and make them last for the life of a vehicle, like internal combustion engines do, find a safe and economical way to store and transport hydrogen fuel, and develop a distribution infrastructure like we have for gasoline.
•Mark Grisham assured everyone that the outfitters would be more than happy to demonstrate the practicality of hydrogen powered electric motor boats in the Grand Canyon, and had a “gut feeling” that this could be achieved in only 6 to 8 years if they had a “serious partnering” with the nps and federal government.
•The Hualapais love clean water and air, and think alternative technologies are wonderful, but—to tell the truth—their representative seemed shocked when asked if they’d be willing to “invest” in a demonstration hydrogen powered motor boat project. I think he was expecting something more along the lines of a subsidy.
•The lobbyist from Plug Power talked knowledgeably about the feasibility of fuel cell powered back up emergency and stationary power supplies, but had nothing to add that was remotely relevant to mobile transportations systems, especially electric motor boats. When asked about demonstration projects involving public transportation, she acknowledged they had been tried “somewhere in Europe,” but could not bring herself to mention the extensive development and testing of fuel cell powered buses in Chicago and Vancouver by Plug Power’s better known competitors, Ballard Power (a Canadian company backed by major auto manufacturers), or in California by utc Power, which has also supplied fuel cell systems for spacecraft since 1961.
The congressmen and many of the panelists seemed to think that hydrogen fuel represents a way to wean ourselves from foreign oil, although some were—especially when questioned—careful to point out that it takes a source of energy to create hydrogen fuel, and that energy (which needs to come from some other source) is lost in the process.

George Radanovich (r–ca) asked about “cracking” water to make hydrogen, but it was not clear that he understood the implications of the answer, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: this is not a ‘free energy’ perpetual motion device. It’s not clear that Renzi understood the question.
Once in awhile, someone would bring up the question about how hydrogen fuel is made, and some panelists acknowledged that today this mainly involves propane, natural gas, coal, or other non-renewables; but there is immense “potential” for the future development of renewables such as solar, wind, and (I’m not kidding) “electrolysis.” Nobody went on to mention that using more traditional fossil fuel energy sources goes a long way towards eliminating the hoped for, but not quite developed yet, “clean efficiency” of hydrogen fuel made with renewable energy.
Biogas, and biodiesel (canola oil laced with ethanol) got some good words, but nobody thought to mention that these, and other, agricultural products depend on cheap foreign oil for their production, or that more (petrochemical) energy goes into the production of ethanol than comes back out again when it is used. Ethanol and other alcohol based fuel additives are net energy consumers, not “magic bullet” new fuel sources.
The funding Renzi’s bill would provide for the first three years of this development/demonstration project is $400k/year, or $1.2 million. If one assumes a similar amount would be forthcoming for the next three years as well to meet Grisham’s minimum “gut estimated” development time, we’re talking $2.4 million—or to put this in proper perspective—about as much money as the nps got to spend on the entire Colorado River Management Planning process. But this does not include the “incentives program” that Renzi is drafting—to be released in a couple weeks—aimed at ensuring outfitter participation (except for the Indians, of course, who might be asked to pay their own way). I think this was the “serious partnering” that Grisham mentioned, without going into details.
So where does this leave us with respect to hydrogen power, and the desirability of highly visible development and demonstrations projects in the National Parks? The news is not all bad, but h.r. 4160 is not the answer.
In a week, more people would see a single hydrogen powered shuttle bus on the rim than would experience an entire fleet of hydrogen powered rafts on the river. A complete system, with renewable wind or solar generators to power the production of hydrogen fuel visible at or near the Park entrance, would make a powerful (and unforgettable) statement.
Wind and solar generators may be costly, but they are reliable off-the-shelf items today. Vehicle makers and fuel cell manufacturers are already testing fuel cell powered buses in several cities around the world. While this technology isn’t quite at the off-the-shelf stage, in the near future some of these companies (and the industry as a whole) could find a significant advantage in the exposure they would get if their products were showcased in National Parks. This is a “demonstration” that could be deployed in the immediate future, without the need for significant further development.
Boating technology predates recorded history. Wind and human powered watercraft have demonstrated clean, quiet, energy efficient propulsion for millennia. For those in a hurry, the current 4-cycle outboard technology is a reliable solution that has done much to reduce the noise and pollution associated with internal combustion. The advantages are significant enough that the motorized operators adopted this “state of the art” technology at their own expense, without the stick of government regulations or the carrot of government subsidies.

Drifter Smith