Shell Presentation on Climate and Energy by 2070

Subtitle: Hydrogen and Ammonia - Both Are Disasters

A Vice-president and Chief Scientist-Chemical Engineering, from Shell made a speech on Tuesday evening, October 1, 2019 in Sugar Land, Texas, at which I am glad I attended and took a few notes.   Dr. Joseph Powell, PhD in Chemical Engineering, was the speaker.  The event was the

combined AIChE South Texas Section and Southwest Process Technology Conference dinner meeting at the Marriott Hotel conference center.   

Dr. Powell spoke on the need for changing the world's energy system to a carbon neutral basis to avoid catastrophic climate change.  His proposed solutions covered a range of paths, but most notably using water, or methane, CH4, to create either 1) a hydrogen energy system, or 2) an ammonia, NH3, energy system.   Solar and wind renewable energy systems were to play a big part in the basic energy input, with hydrogen or ammonia as the energy carriers.   The time-frame was a transition period of 50 years, and carbon neutrality achieved by the year 2070.   With a veiled swipe at the Green New Deal proposal, he mentioned that changing the world's huge energy infrastructure could not be done in a short period, but would require several decades.   I agree with that last statement based on my 40 years experience in the industry, the sheer size and scope of the energy infrastructure would require decades to transform. 

The presentation, as he said, was based on the Shell Sky Scenarios developed and published by Shell over the past few decades.  ( see link to Shell Sky Scenarios.)

I cringed when I heard this presentation, and more than once.   This article describes what I believe I heard, and why such things caused me to shake my head in total dismay.   In short, hydrogen is incredibly dangerous and should never be placed in general, widespread use due to the inevitable fires, explosions, and human deaths.   Ammonia is equally toxic.    The economic impact of a radical transition to hydrogen would be catastrophic to 90 percent of the world's population.  

Dr. Powell began with a brief introduction of his experience, with a BS in chemical engineering in 1978, when the US had gasoline shortages such that gasoline sales were allowed only on alternate days.   A car owner could buy gas based on the last digit of the license plate, odd numbers on odd-numbered days, and even numbers on the even-numbered days.  I recall those days vividly, as my BS in chemical engineering was awarded just one year earlier, in 1977.   

Dr. Powell obtained his PhD in chemical engineering a few years later (1984), and worked in various assignments at Shell for the past 30 years.  Part of that appears to be looking far into the future, and evaluating various processes to meet energy demands.  It is instructive, although he made no mention of this, that Shell's energy reserves are natural gas, to a significant extent.   Shell has notably failed to discover significant oil reserves, however.   So, it makes sense that Shell's Sky Scenarios would focus on processes that convert natural gas to usable transportation fuels.   He did mention at one point Shell's gas-to-diesel process plant, PERL, in Qatar.   The PERL plant takes an otherwise worthless natural gas pocket located deep in the Middle East, and produces diesel fuel that can be transported by ship or pipeline.  

Dr. Powell also mentioned that, in 1978, the world's climate scientists sounded the alarm over imminent global cooling.   That, too, is a vivid memory, since the bitterly cold winters of 1977, 1978, and 1979 were at the end of a 35-year cooling trend (since 1945).  (SLB has several articles on the Abilene Effect, and the unprecedented consecutive 3 years  of abnormally cold winters   see link.)  The climate scientists were very wrong then, as almost everyone knows by now.   

One can only wonder why those climate scientists are to be believed now, when they were so spectacularly wrong in 1980 about global cooling and an imminent ice age.  Few of the same scientists are alive today, but the discipline has quite a few people sounding an equally shrill alarm over global warming. 

The final bit of introductory material discussed the opinion polls, which he said showed a large minority (I think 30-40 percent?) believe that climate change is real and is a crisis.  Another minority view (perhaps another 40 percent?) held no position for or against, and a small minority hold the view that there is zero cause for alarm.    He said that the opinion of stakeholders led Shell to develop the future scenarios.    That was not shareholders he mentioned, but stakeholders.   He did not define exactly who he meant by stakeholders. 

As an aside, oil companies such as Shell, BP, Chevron, and ExxonMobil (collectively known as Big Oil), and the national oil companies from many nations, have been the targets of many organizations for many decades.    I have met many of the Big Oil opponents, and found that they fervently believe in things like the car with a 200 mile-per-gallon carburetor, magic portable batteries that let an affordable car run for 1000 miles on one charge, and recharge in 5 minutes, solar panels that work around the clock, and wind turbines that produce free electricity.   Many of these same people advocate vigorously for nuclear power plants, even the tiny ones that would be buried in a vault in every neighborhood to produce electricity for very near free, just a small metering charge.   To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, "It's not that (these people) don't know anything, but what they know just isn't so."

The reality is, yes, some cars obtain 200 miles per gallon.  Much more than that, in fact.  But, they can never be sold in commercial use because they will never meet the automotive safety standards.   Those are highly specialized "cars" with very little weight, tiny engines, very high-pressure or solid tires, and run at slow speed on an incredibly smooth surface.   We now do have batteries that would allow 1000 miles range, but the cost is still very high.  Recharging in a short time is possible, but will be very expensive.   Solar panels of course would not work around the clock, unless they are in orbit.   Wind turbines are getting better, but 3 cents per kWh for the electricity is about the best we have at this time.  

Returning to Dr. Powell's presentation, he described several process paths for a carbon-neutral energy system by the year 2070.  They were, as best I can recall, gas to methanol, gas to hydrogen via carbon black process, water to hydrogen via electrolysis, gas to hydrogen via steam-methane-reforming with CO2 capture, and natural gas to ammonia. 

The hydrogen would be transported to the end user, where cars with fuel cells would fill up and drive away for their normal use.   He mentioned one detailed study that Shell performed, with solar panels in north Texas providing energy to produce hydrogen that would be sent to New York City for use in fuel-cell vehicles.   It was not clear to me if the solar panels would make electricity for water electrolysis (produces hydrogen), or supply electricity for hydrogen production via the carbon black process.   He did mention that excess carbon black could be permanently stored in abandoned coal mines.   As an aside, that does not seem sustainable to me, since there are such a limited number of abandoned coal mines in the world.   If we truly are about to run out of oil (and gas), surely we are equally certain to run out of space in the coal mines.  

The mix of energy providers in year 2070 also seems very implausible, with nuclear power almost quadrupling from today, solar PV providing a bit more than 30 percent of all energy, and wind providing a bit more than 10 percent of all energy.   

Nuclear power is going to shrink, and fall to almost zero within 20 years as it is completely lost in the competitive market, not to mention the growing awareness of the dangers of meltdown disasters.  (Update 10/4/2019:  Shell's proposal would have 1,800 nuclear power plants built between year 2020 and 2070, with one large 1,000 MWe output plant started up every 10 days for the next 50 years.   Clearly, that is never going to happen.  see link for SLB articles on the many insurmountable disadvantages of nuclear power  - end update) 

Solar has a distinct disadvantage compared to wind, because even in the best locations, solar can only produce at approximately 25 percent of the installed capacity.   The Sun's path across the sky dictates this outcome.  However, wind does not care where the Sun is, and wind turbine generators are already producing at an annual rate of 50 percent (some at 60 percent) of nameplate capacity.  The result of this is that any storage system for solar must be at least twice as large, require more capital to install, and have more losses on charging and discharging.  Solar PV will never, ever, win out over wind on a global basis.   

For some illustrative numbers, a 4,000 MW solar power plant that produces at 25 percent of nameplate would produce only 24,000 MWh in a 24 hour period.  But, for the 6 hours per day that it does operate, and using 100 percent output as a simplification, the plant would send one-fourth of the output to the grid (6,000 MWh), and three-fourths (18,000 MWh) to a storage system (presumably batteries).  The storage system would then discharge for 18 hours each day, returning approximately 80 percent of the stored electricity back to the grid.  

Wind turbines that operate at 60 percent of nameplate would have a similar analysis, 1,667 MW at 60 percent gives 24,000 MWh in a 24 hour period.   Only 40 percent need be stored, with 9,600 MWh stored.  

Conclusion

Shell's Sky Scenario is entirely implausible for many reasons, and is extremely unsafe due to the reliance on hydrogen as an energy carrier.  The system is also woefully too costly, with reliance on very expensive nuclear plants, and solar PV systems with twice the storage requirements compared to wind turbine generators.  

There is zero need to reduce any CO2 emissions in any event, since any measured  warming in the past 100 years is almost entirely due to natural forces, increased human population growth, and increased energy consumption.  Natural droughts since 1960, El Nino events since 1960, urban heat effect from more dense cities, increased fuel and electricity per capita, decreased cloud cover due to more sunspots, and cleaner air with fewer aerosols due to air pollution laws, all are responsible for "global warming."  But, CO2 is innocent.  (see link to SLB article on A Skeptic's View of Climate Science - It's BS)

Roger E. Sowell

Houston, Texas
copyright (c) 2019 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here, here,  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here  

Hydrogen from Nuclear Power Plants

Subtitle: It Works but Nobody Could Afford It

Recently I attended a technical presentation on the future of hydrogen as a fuel.  The fuel would be for transportation and for power generation.   The venue, date, and presenter will remain anonymous in this post. 

The presenter was quite knowledgeable, an excellent speaker, had very nice graphics and charts and tables in his presentation, and made many excellent points.  A few points caused me to raise my eyebrows, however.  It is those dubious points that are the subject of this post (for dubious, translate that as flat-out wrong).  

The presenter started with hydrogen-fueled cars using fuel cells.  A commenter sitting near me stated: "Great!  California will have hydrogen cars spewing out the single most powerful greenhouse gas, water vapor."  The desert air will have humidity increased and localized warming (not global) will occur.    In fact, humid air requires greater air conditioning energy to not only cool the air but to condense the water vapor out of the air.  The power grid load will increase.  

The first point was that hydrogen will be produced by using nuclear power at $20 per MWh, via electrolysis of water.    However, nuclear power cannot be made for $20 per MWh (this is the same as 2 cents per kWh).  Even if the incremental cost of nuclear power were 2 cents, one must find a nuclear plant that can increase its load so that the increase runs the hydrogen electrolyzers.  The fact is that nuclear plants run as baseload.  Therefore, any additional load on the grid will be from the incremental power provider, which most likely will be a natural gas-fired plant.  At night, during off-peak hours, the power price is approximately 5 to 7 cents.  In the day, during on-peak hours, the power price is anywhere from 15 to 50 cents per kWh.  

The second point was that hydrogen will be the logical fuel when a carbon market brings the price of carbon dioxide emissions to $100 per metric tonne.  The presenter stated that this must be done to prevent global warming as the IPCC has warned us about.   With man-made global warming existing only in the output of faulty computer models and not in reality, this is quite a problem for the hydrogen industry to face.  

The third point was that hydrogen as a fuel for cars is much safer than gasoline.  The presenter showed a graphic of a fuel-cell car with a hydrogen flame shooting vertically out of the trunk.  This was compared to a gasoline-powered car with the entire car engulfed in flames.  He also stated (correctly) that a hydrogen flame is invisible in daytime, and barely visible at night.   What he did not state is that a car can be in any position after a collision, on its side, crumpled, and the hydrogen flame can be firing out for many feet in any direction.   That alone will increase automobile insurance rate far beyond what the average driver can afford.   Fuel cell cars will not ever be common for this reason.  Earlier advocates make the point that the hydrogen fuel tank cannot explode, cannot be ruptured, and has fail-safe valves to seal the hydrogen inside in a collision.   Such claims are pure conjecture.  The tangled mass of metal in a high-speed collision could and would puncture any tank.  

The fourth point was that hydrogen is safe in use.  Those of us who have worked with hydrogen for any time know that is false.  Hydrogen has properties that result in it leaking from almost any piping system, and invading the spaces between atoms in the metallic crystal structure.  Hydrogen embrittlement results.   The metal cracks and leaks even more.  When hydrogen leaks, it needs no spark to start burning.  It auto-ignites.  

The fifth point was hydrogen can be liquefied and used as aircraft fuel.  Considering first the safety considerations, loading liquid hydrogen is done by NASA on its rockets as one of the most dangerous aspects of a launch.   It may be possible someday to safely load liquid hydrogen onto an aircraft for fuel, but that day is a long way off. 

The sixth point was that hydrogen is far more efficient on a well-to-wheels basis compared to gasoline, speaking of vehicle transportation.   This is a common statement by hydrogen advocates, but is false.  An engineering analysis must include the inefficiency of the water electrolyzer, drying the wet hydrogen, compressing the hydrogen, using the hydrogen to produce power in the fuel cell, the high temperature of the fuel cell, then inefficiency of the electric motor to produce shaft power for the wheels.  

The audience was too polite to bring up these points at the presentation, but a few of us made eye contact and shrugged as these points were made.   

Hydrogen as transportation fuel is not economic, nor is it safe for the reasons stated above. 

As a power plant fuel, hydrogen has potential.  Where coal is first gasified then the impurities are removed to leave only hydrogen, that hydrogen can be burned in a power plant to produce electricity.  Such a plant is under construction in Mississippi at this time.  Another plant that gasifies a mixture of coal and petroleum coke has been designed for central California.  That plant is seeking funding for construction. 

However, if the economics of hydrogen for transportation fuel depend on obtaining electricity at 2 cents per kWh from a nuclear power plant, it will never be economic.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California