13

updated to include using hydrogen in place of natural gas/gasoline, instead of solely to produce electricity.

Note that while this question is somewhat about law, lawyers cost money, and I don't intend on trying this. I find this subject fun to think/argue about, and I figured others might too. My goal is to obtain some logical ammunition for my pursuit in convincing a friend, and not necessarily to find real legal information (I doubt it exists anyway).

A friend of mine is convinced that it is against the law to build a hydrogen burning car, or a small hydrogen power plant to power your house for "free." His reasoning is that, because fuel and energy are such a large part of the economy, the government doesn't want everybody becoming the wiser and cutting their power lines and converting their cars to hydrogen (I don't know anything about the feasibility of burning hydrogen gas in an internal combustion engine, or of converting an electric car to use fuel cells) and avoid paying fuel and electrical taxes forever. I mention his reasoning because he framed it like a conspiracy-cover-up magnitude "law," where it's not really a law, but that The Man will swoop down and lock you up if you try this, to keep the idea quiet.

I think the premises that energy taxes are extremely valuable to the government, and that governments wish to protect this resource, are true. But the conclusion seems absurd.

He referred to this as "free" energy -- and since in many cases producing hydrogen is expensive, I assume he was referring to a cheap method of obtaining hydrogen such as electrolysis which can have somewhere between 50-70% efficiency according to some reports. His reason for believing that this method was so illegal (instead of say, wind generation) is that water can be readily obtained from any creek or lake and is untaxable, and that hydrogen gas could be produced by electrolysis by another freely available energy source such as solar or wind.

He cited a case (which I couldn't find a record of) in which a farmer set up a makeshift hydrogen power plant to save money. He was thrown in jail shortly thereafter for producing hydrogen for the purpose of generating electricity. I argued that if this is true, the arrest was probably for other reasons, such as not being qualified to engineer such a beast, not having a licence (if one is required in this case) to operate a power plant, or having built it in an way which is dangerous. He assured me it was because of the hydrogen.

I would assume that you do need a licence of sorts in order to generate lots and lots of power, to use the equipment necessary to build a hydrogen power plant, or to own equipment which has been re-tooled to run on hydrogen gas. Since hydrogen has such a high energy density, and electrolysis is relatively simple and cheap, this would be a worthwhile endeavor for a hobbyist. I again argued that it would be extremely dangerous for people to do this and therefore of course illegal, but he maintained that they would be arrested even if they were qualified and had proper equipment. I said that I doubted you could even run such an operation in a residential zone, but he said it would only serve a single household, so wouldn't need a special zone, and referred again to the case of the poor farmer where neighbors would be few and far between (and I believe people do operate wind generators on farms).

Does this idea hold water? Is the government even concerned with how much they can tax you vs. how much energy/fuel you are able to obtain?

Carson Myers
  • 2,755
  • 1
  • 16
  • 16
  • Just for clarity: I assume you're talking about the situation in the United States? – Lagerbaer May 31 '11 at 19:09
  • 20
    You need more energy to get the hydrogen gas out of water than you get back by using it for a fuel cell, so the idea to generate cheap electricity from water fundamentally contradicts basic thermodynamics. Your question about comparing energy from hydrogen to wind/solar doesn't make any sense (not your fault) as the important part is where you get the hydrogen from. If you get it by electrolysis, you're not producing energy, but destroying it. – Mad Scientist May 31 '11 at 19:10
  • @Fabian are you sure? I understand thermodynamics and thought about this aspect, but thought that since the energy used for electrolysis goes toward breaking bonds, and the energy output has to do with the chemical properties of whatever was attached by those bonds (nothing to do with the bonds themselves) thermodynamics wasn't violated. If the energy output involved re-bonding the atoms, then thermodynamics would come into play. Am I mistaken? – Carson Myers May 31 '11 at 19:15
  • 1
    @Lagerbaer not necessarily, I know laws vary from country to country, but I'd be interested in information from any country – Carson Myers May 31 '11 at 19:17
  • 7
    The energy is all in the bonds. Pure H2 and O2 have a higher energy than H2O, you're going downhill thermodynamically in the fuel cell and gain energy. If you use electrolysis to get H2 and O2 from water, you go uphill and have to supply external energy to make it happen at all (more than you get back in the fuel cell, that's the 50-70% efficiency). – Mad Scientist May 31 '11 at 19:21
  • 1
    @Fabian I missed the part in your comment about the fuel cell bit. Noted, but I'm referring also to burning it for use in a vehicle or generator. I'm not well educated with these technologies but am doing some reading about them now. – Carson Myers May 31 '11 at 19:22
  • 4
    @Carson The energy you get is similar, not matter if you use a fuel cell or burn it. They have different efficiencies, but the theoretical maximum you can get out is the same. – Mad Scientist May 31 '11 at 19:23
  • 3
    @Carson Electorysis creates hydrogen and oxygen from water by breaking the bonds, using the energy from electricity. Combustion of hydrogen creates water from hydrogen and oxygen by reforming the bonds, releasing the energy as heat. If you performed these actions with perfect efficiency you would get back in the combustion the energy you put in with the electroysis. Since the processes are (much) less than perfect, you end up getting considerably less back. – DJClayworth May 31 '11 at 19:23
  • 1
    @DJClayworth D'oh! Forgot what a combustion reaction actually _was_. My mistake. Still, using the hydrogen in place of natural gas for heating or gasoline for running a car would no doubt be cheaper, right? I'd like to still try and get some information about this conspiracy business. P.S., the thermodynamics challenge of using hydrogen to power your house would do good as an answer, in my eyes – Carson Myers May 31 '11 at 19:30
  • 2
    The question remains: How do you get the water into oxygen and hydrogen? By electrolysis? Fine. Where do you get the power for electrolysis from? From somewhere else. Solar, wind, nuclear or fossil. – Lagerbaer May 31 '11 at 19:35
  • 2
    @Lagerbaer I wish I hadn't made this question solely about electricity. I think I'll revise it. lots of tax money also comes from natural gas and vehicle gasoline. Using a solar array to produce hydrogen via electrolysis _would_ be essentially "free" (ignoring setup costs, of course) and would circumvent taxation. It presents the same problem. – Carson Myers May 31 '11 at 19:42
  • @Carson Myers: Why not post a separate question about that, and then reference it here for further comments? – Randolf Richardson May 31 '11 at 19:57
  • @Lagerbaer: Could you share a link for the situation you're referring to? – Randolf Richardson May 31 '11 at 20:02
  • 1
    @Randolf because ultimately it's about the same thing, just under different circumstances. I was just trying to make the idea more feasible while still falling under the same conspiracy, where the conspiracy is what I'm asking about – Carson Myers May 31 '11 at 20:04
  • 2
    If any process that you could install in the back of a farm would be cheaper than paying for electricity coming in over the lines, the power companies themselves would be using the method to drastically cut costs. Power companies are still _businesses_ and any alternative power source that cuts costs would be good business. This doesn't directly answer your question, but it provides a good sanity check with regard to conspiracy theories like this. If it actually worked, why would anyone still be using the old methods? – MrHen May 31 '11 at 20:09
  • 1
    @Carson Myers Yes, using solar energy for electrolysis an then using the hydrogen would be free, **but**, it is only free because the sun shines for free. And to my knowledge, it is **not** illegal to set up a bunch of solar panels in your backyard. – Lagerbaer May 31 '11 at 20:15
  • @MrHen true. I had a misunderstanding about combustion, but now that that's been cleared up I don't believe it's feasible to generate electricity on large scales with hydrogen and electrolysis. However, to stay with the tone of my question: A power plant could be using just such a method for just as cheap, but the cost of using that power has markups and taxes. The question is mainly about circumventing those factors, rather than finding ways to do better than power plants. – Carson Myers May 31 '11 at 20:16
  • @Lagerbear you are right. With my misunderstanding about using hydrogen for power though, I speculated that you could get a much higher yield with much lower startup costs -- and my friend postulated that this is the reason that this process was "unofficially" disallowed. However now I know that there are *much stricter* laws than federal ones that disallow it :P – Carson Myers May 31 '11 at 20:21
  • @Lagerbaer: Actually, most of the ones I've seen were on the roof. The gizmo that my cousins had to buy to connect to the power grid cost about a thousand dollars. (If you're an electrical lineman, you don't want to be surprised by a live wire.) – David Thornley May 31 '11 at 23:12
  • One point of anecdotal information: I know someone who has an oil well on their property, courtesy of their local oil producer. It has natural gas in the well also, which would normally be burned as waste gas in most oil fields because it's not enough to be worth collecting. They have it hooked up to a pump and storage tank and he has free use of it, using it to heat his house and run his generator when the power goes out. He doesn't pay specific taxes on the fuel he consumes. The land is more valuable, though, so his land taxes are higher than they would otherwise be without a well. – Adam Davis Jun 01 '11 at 00:53
  • 2
    I seems that belief in perpetual motion machines goes along with belief that government or unnamed conspiracies don't want you to have them. As in "secrets your XXX doesn't want you to know". In this case, if you could get hydrogen "cheaply" by electrolysis, you could use it to generate electricity "cheaply" to complete the cycle, and have some left over. Wonderful - boundless energy! – Mike Dunlavey Jun 01 '11 at 01:09
  • @Mike true, that was a misconception of mine. The idea was that the initial electricity would be responsible for breaking the hydrogen-oxygen bonds, and then the "larger amount" of electricity would come from stored energy in molecular hydrogen. However, I neglected to consider that combusting hydrogen is really just turning it back into water. – Carson Myers Jun 01 '11 at 04:09
  • 1
    Hydrogen is a form of energy *storage*, it's not a fuel. You can't dig it out of the ground for energy profit. You can generate it to store energy, but it's a pretty inefficient process, it's a gas and takes up a lot of space, and isn't generally a great idea. You can store a lot of energy per kilogram, but not very much per liter. You'd be better off storing solar energy in a battery, I believe. – endolith Jul 08 '11 at 23:26
  • 1
    @endolith but you can burn it in a car, furnace, stove, barbecue, etc – Carson Myers Jul 09 '11 at 04:44
  • 1
    @Carson: What I mean is that it's not an energy *source*. You're always spending more energy to produce it than you're getting back out of it. – endolith Jul 09 '11 at 15:23
  • 1
    @endolith so? Your classification of what is a fuel/energy source and what isn't seems arbitrary and doesn't change anything either way. Besides, if you use solar energy to produce hydrogen by electrolysis, then the energy to do it is free anyways. I'd also like to point out that an energy source is just anywhere you can get energy from. If you use the energy stored in Hydrogen, then Hydrogen is your energy source. – Carson Myers Jul 10 '11 at 03:35
  • @Carson: Have you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy? You could also store solar energy by using it to produce paper, and then burning the paper. It would be free, but it would be much less efficient than other energy carriers, and therefore wasteful. – endolith Jul 11 '11 at 14:38
  • @endolith but if you were getting energy from burning paper then the paper would be an energy source, no? If that paper is enabling some machine to do work, would it not be that machine's fuel? – Carson Myers Jul 12 '11 at 05:39
  • @Carson: The point is that producing paper and then burning it to make a car go is tremendously wasteful. Similarly, producing hydrogen and then burning it to make a car go is wasteful. This is why hydrogen isn't (or shouldn't) be used, not because of some government conspiracy. "Electric vehicles are typically 3 to 4 times as efficient as hydrogen powered vehicles." Using your solar power to charge batteries is simpler and less wasteful. http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/guide/hydrogen/index.cfm – endolith Jul 12 '11 at 15:39

3 Answers3

18

No.

At least not in the U.S.

Utilities must buy your excess power.

The Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1978 (PURPA) requires power providers to purchase excess power from grid-connected small renewable energy systems at a rate equal to what it costs the power provider to produce the power itself.

Specifically...

(11) Net metering Each electric utility shall make available upon request net metering service to any electric consumer that the electric utility serves. For purposes of this paragraph, the term “net metering service” means service to an electric consumer* under which electric energy generated by that electric consumer from an eligible on-site generating facility and delivered to the local distribution facilities may be used to offset electric energy provided by the electric utility to the electric consumer during the applicable billing period. - TITLE 16 CHAPTER 46 SUBCHAPTER II § 2621

*The term “electric consumer” means any person, State agency, or Federal agency, to which electric energy is sold other than for purposes of resale.

Implementation is left to the individual states (as usual). In Missouri you get the money that would have gone to the evil fossil fuel producers. No spendy. No taxy.

If during the billing period, the customer generates more power than is used, the utility provides the customer a 'credit' for the surplus power. The credit is based on the cost the utility would have incurred to purchase the fuel consumed to generate an equal number of kilowatt-hours.

As long as you produce your hydrogen from a renewable source Missouri is cool with it.

To be eligible, electricity must be produced from wind, solar thermal sources, hydroelectric sources, photovoltaic cells and panels, fuel cells using hydrogen produced by one of the above named electrical energy sources, and other sources of energy that become available after August 28, 2007, and are certified as renewable by the Department of Natural Resources. - Missouri Net Metering and the Easy Connection Act

Federal, state and local codes apply. In general the standards are not much different than those concerning propane, CNG, et al.

Fire safety under NFPA 55 and Compressed Hydrogen should be memorized if you go this way.

The Bottom Line...

Hydrogen is not a special case under U.S. law. Follow the appropriate building codes and you're all good.

Did I mention...

Fire safety under NFPA 55 and Compressed Hydrogen should be memorized if you go this way.

Rusty
  • 14,877
  • 4
  • 55
  • 49
  • 11
    Fantastic, especially the last quote. That'll be huge firing power in this argument: "According to US law, if you generate electricity with hydrogen, they won't arrest you, **they'll pay you.**" – Carson Myers Jun 01 '11 at 04:12
  • 2
    @Carson Any results ? Did you make him cry ? – Rusty Jun 04 '11 at 18:44
  • 2
    whoops, never saw your comment. No, he sort of conceded, with a "I dunno." But having no denial that my evidence was staggering – Carson Myers Jun 28 '11 at 23:28
  • 1
    *"Fire safety under NFPA 55 and Compressed Hydrogen should be memorized if you go this way."* - [*"I said it twice because it's important!"*](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8cM3m9sQB_0/T5St7RtEX2I/AAAAAAAAAbk/WytcbMSI9nM/s320/twice.jpg) --- Nice answer @Rusty! Funny too! [+1] – CosmicGiant Nov 14 '12 at 20:02
  • 1
    In some places you many also need to follow hazardous material handling standards. Also zoning may be an issue in some communities. Even solar and wind generation is prohibited by some local ordinances. – Chad Nov 14 '12 at 21:45
14

Several points to answer here.

First is that the whole physics basis of your friend's scheme is fundamentally flawed. Electrolysis creates hydrogen and oxygen from water by breaking chemical bonds, using the energy from electricity. Combustion of hydrogen creates water from hydrogen and oxygen by reforming the bonds, releasing the bond energy as heat. If you performed these actions with perfect efficiency you would get back in the combustion the energy you put in with the electroysis. Since the processes are (much) less than perfect, you end up getting considerably less back. In other words the electrolysis to generate the hydrogen will always take more energy than you get back from the combustion.

If your friend has a source of hydrogen other than electroysis that is a different matter. One of the scenarios in which Ballard Power recommends fuel cells is for chemical plants that already produce hydrogen. (Thanks to Randolf Richardson for that link)

To move on to the legal question, most jurisdictions have no laws about generating your own electricity. I can't speak for the various US states, but in Canada plenty of off-grid homes have their own generating equipment. However there certainly are regulations about what you can connect to the grid, and you need some kind of approval in order to put power into the grid.

Another aspect is that storage and use of flammable gasses in any quantity requires permits (for what I hope are obvious reasons if you think about the consequences of untrained and irresponsible people handling them) and there are rules governing them. Your friend would have to abide by them in order to get his scheme working. See here. If the farmer in the story was arrested because he had lots of hydrogen stored in an unsafe way, then that was nothing to do with 'free energy', and was probably a good thing for his neighbours.

Finally, as Randolf Richardson points out, there are certainly installations of fuel cells which have been approved. See the Ballard link above. The Men in Black have so far not come to arrest any of the installers for reducing the profits of Big Power.

DJClayworth
  • 57,419
  • 26
  • 209
  • 195
  • 2
    that youtube link is extremely awesome. It's also funny that at the end of the video it suggests converting your car to hydrogen :P That'll solve the problem! – Carson Myers May 31 '11 at 20:01
4

In Canada we can get this technology here, and our government hasn't shut it down:

  Ballard - Residential fuel cell cogeneration systems
  http://www.ballard.com/Stationary_Power/Cogeneration_Fuel_Cells/Fuel_Cell_Benefits.htm

(I find that many conspiracy theorists worry a lot about what they think their government might do to them if they do something that they think is outrageous.)

The important thing for your friend to do is to get the required permits to build whatever he/she wishes to build. Since it involves major electrical work, there will likely be many permits involved.

When it comes to electrical products that involve the use of 110 VAC and higher power in any way, there are certain standards that must be met and organizations like the CSA provide testing for these things. If your friend wishes to build their own power generation equipment, they may be required by law to adhere to some standards like this, and if I were living next door I would want to be assured that there was no danger to me or my family (which is part of the reason why these regulations are in place). I would be equally concerned if your friend was installing a new gas fireplace without first obtaining the proper permits.

Regarding motor vehicles, there are many strict safety regulations that have to be adhered to that can be very limiting on how vehicles can be designed.

I find that the main reason people don't get permits, workers' compensation coverage, etc., is to save money and reduce paperwork. Unfortunately for them the government sometimes uses a heavy-handed approach in dealing with them. On the flip-side a "slap-on-the-wrist" (e.g., a small fine only) also isn't appropriate when peoples' lives could be put at risk because it doesn't send a strong enough message that these regulations are important.

So, I suggest that your friend take that product from Ballard Power (or one like it) and go ask the local government "What permits do I need to install and use a product like this?" If your friend genuinely wants to do this, then they'll be very happy if they can get a list of permits and other requirements they have to meet (because then they can proceed with a plan). If your friend just likes to spout off conspiracy theories, as a lot of people do, then there will probably be a wide variety of excuses for not doing it along with continued talk about the conspiracy.

Randolf Richardson
  • 2,034
  • 2
  • 19
  • 21
  • 2
    For the record, there are no plans to actually build this. While this friend _does_ like spouting off conspiracy theories, it's not for the purpose of "WHY WOULD YOU TRUST THE GOVERNMENT!?" Like so many are. He and I like to debate :) W.r.t the part about motor vehicle regulations, there [are hydrogen burning internal combustion engines](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_internal_combustion_engine_vehicle) which involves a cheap re-tooling of a regular engine. I think the "conspiracy" part comes in if you do this yourself rather than buying a taxable engine and buying the hydrogen. – Carson Myers May 31 '11 at 19:53
  • @DJClayworth: I refuse to allow you to call it "pillaging" by giving you my consent to copy them to your heart's desire and use them where ever you please. =D – Randolf Richardson May 31 '11 at 19:54
  • 3
    @Carson A simple substitution of the word 'safe' instead of 'taxable' explains why this isn't a conspiracy. – DJClayworth May 31 '11 at 19:56
  • 1
    @Carson Myers: Before proceeding with converting a vehicle, I would check with my insurance company as well as the government to make sure that I will be able to actually use my vehicle after the upgrade. – Randolf Richardson May 31 '11 at 19:56
  • 1
    @Randolf You have my thanks, and you can still have the upvote. – DJClayworth May 31 '11 at 19:56
  • 1
    @DJClayworth sure, but as I mentioned in my question albeit in a different context, he argues that even if you were qualified to retool the engine _and_ to produce and handle flammable gases, if you run your car on them and don't pay taxes for it, the government will pwn you – Carson Myers May 31 '11 at 19:58
  • @DJClayworth: You're welcome -- I voted for your answer before you edited me in there, by the way (thanks for the credit). =) – Randolf Richardson May 31 '11 at 19:59
  • 1
    @Carson Your friend's argument appears to be that the government will 'pwn' you just because they are evil, but offers no indication of how they will do it, or what laws they will use. – DJClayworth Oct 12 '11 at 15:32