Slashdot Mirror
Cheaper, Cleaner Hydrogen Without Platinum
keithww writes "Looks like the hydrogen economy may have gotten a whole lot cheaper. Wisconsin team engineers gas from biomass
using common metals of tin, nickel, and aluminum instead of platinum. This looks like a good way to get rid of biowaste also." Of course, there's still a long way to go before the automotive industry is using it, but it is good news nonetheless.
And does anyone actually believe that the fossil fuels industry will lie down and let this happen without a fight?
Two words: The Sun
It's much easier to get methane from biowaste. And methane can be used nearly in the same way like hydrogen for electric cells. In fact, I think the whole stuff is even cheaper and simpler with methane.
The only argument against methane is its mind alterating effects (halluzinations etc), so drug addicts might use it as a substitution for heroine and crack.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Didn't a recent article say hydrogen was as bad for the ozone as sheep farts?
Wisconsin team engineers gas from biomass
Apparently I wasn't the only one to eat Taco Bell last night...
Ok, so you can make Hydrogen from biomass. I really wish they would give an example instead of just saying that it can be scaled from small output for batteries and such. Does the entire earths surface have to be covered with biomass before we have enough for our energy needs, or can we just use somehwere the size of Iowa?
this is the future
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Work is being done on using carbon nanorods to store hydrogen (amongst others by the Renewable Energies Research Lab in Golden, CO). These would be cheap and safely disposable and probably represent the future of hydrogen fuel tech.
Even if the auto industry/petrochem industry did prevent the widespread adoption from being used in the US, there are other countries like Japan which have the capability to engineer complex systems, the discipline to deploy them, and who would welcome reducing their depndence on foreign oil.
Of course, there's still a long way to go before the automotive industry is using it, but it is good news nonetheless.
.. maybe call this "mr. hydrogen" instead?
anyone else get the image of doc brown tossing in some banana peels and beer into "mr. fusion"??
----
i do not use drugs, i AM drugs -- Dali
We should just cycle everywere. Cheap, environemntally friendly and relaxing
rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
yeah, and the buggy-whip manufacturers got screwed back in the day. As did the coach-builders, blacksmiths, stables, etc. So, they adapted (coach-builders built auto coaches, blacksmiths became mechanics, stables became hotels) or died.
That's capitalism for you.
Like methanol.
Pure hydrogen fuel cells sound like a great idea, no pollution but water.
Except then you come to the problem of storage and transportation and have to spend a truly massive fortune on research and development like this, and, once that's done you also have the job of upgrading the entire energy distribution infrastructure which oddly enough will also be rather expensive.
But hey, go ahead, it's a free market, someone else will come along with much cheaper solution.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Whatever happened on research on anti-matter reactors? The entire concept is feasable, and it is very effeicient. In most nuclear fission reactions, the efficency is about 8%, and combustion reactions usually have substantially less, at less than a tenth of a percent. In an anti-matter reaction, nothing is wasted, and the efficency is 100%.
could it produce 1.21 gigawatts? Great Scott!
Why? Because the fossil fuels industry is really just a chemistry industry. They don't really care that it's petroleum they're selling to you. As long as it's something that they can sell to you.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
It's cos you actually get the performance you would expect from a 348mpg carburator and oddly enough, nobody will buy a car which goes from 0-60 in four and a half hours.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Raney-NiSn can perform for at least 48 hours... before what? Before it has to be replaced? Before it has to rested? What happens after 48 hours?
The materials required are just one expense, the catalyst typically is expected to be reusable (consumed at a very low rate due to inefficiencies). However, the amount of raw material required to extract the energy, the size of the apparatus and the amount of energy required to get a unit of energy are probably the real issues. If it takes more than a Joule to extract the hydrogen required to generate a Joule of energy, the system is only viable for special applications, not as an energy source.
You're killing the planet! Recycling is bad! Landfills are good!
No, I'm not kidding.
Global warming may be due to humanity's CO2 emissions, or solar radiation, or something we haven't even discovered yet, but it's something detrimental to our society and it'd be nice to do something about it. Well, the best way is to stop burning stuff, obviously. On the other hand, our society runs on our burning stuff. That's not good.
Well, the least we can do is stop burning stuff that gives us the least benefit. That, my friends, is garbage. Waste incinerators, even if they provide cogeneration, would run at a loss if they weren't paid extra by people who don't want the stuff they burn. So it's not such a big deal to NOT burn the garbage and burn something more efficient instead.
Further, while there are some materials it may make sense to recycle, when it comes to plastics, you're better off burying it. Every bit of plastic you DON'T recycle is another quantity of oil that will never be burned, but will instead go back to sequestering carbon under the ground.
From http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/solar.htm
Funny!
Many groups and individuals are proposing that our government spend tax money on research and development of systems to utilize solar energy. They urge construction of vast solar energy collectors to convert sunlight to electricity to supply our energy needs. They would even put solar collectors on roofs of homes, factories, schools, and other buildings. Proponents of this technology claim that energy obtained from the sun will be safer and cleaner than coal, oil, or nuclear energy sources.
We view these proposals with alarm. Unscrupulous scientists and greedy promoters are hoodwinking a gullible public. We consider it rash and dangerous to commit our country to the use of solar energy. This solar technology has never been utilized on such a large scale, and we have no assurance of its long-range safety. Not one single study has been done to assess the safety of electricity from solar energy as compared to electricity from other sources.
The promoters of solar energy cleverly lead you to believe that it is perfectly safe. Yet they conveniently neglect to mention that solar energy is generated by nuclear fusion within the sun. This process operates on the very same basic laws of nuclear physics used in nuclear power plants and atomic bombs!
And what is the source of this energy? It is hydrogen, a highly explosive gas (remember the Hindenberg?) Hydrogen is also the active material in H-bombs, that are not only tremendously destructive, but produce dangerous fallout. The glib advocates of solar energy don't even mention these disturbing facts about the true sources of solar energy. What else are they trying to hide from us?
In addition to the known dangers cited above, what about the unknown dangers, that very well might be worse? When pressed, scientists will admit that they do not fully understand the workings of the sun, or even of the atom. They will even grudgingly admit that our knowledge of the basic laws of physics is not yet perfect or complete. Yet these same reckless scientists would have us use this solar technology even before we fully understand how it works.
Admittedly we are already subject to a natural `background' radiation from the sun. We can do little about that, except to stay out of direct sunlight as much as possible. The evidence is already clear that too much exposure to sunlight can cause skin cancer. But solar collectors would concentrate that sunlight (that otherwise would have fallen harmlessly on waste land), convert it to electricity and pipe it into our homes to irradiate us from every light bulb! We would then not even be safe from this cancer-producing energy even in our own homes!
We all know that looking at the sun for even a few seconds can cause blindness. What long term health hazards might result from reading by light derived from solar energy? We now spend large amounts of time looking at the light from television monitors or computer screens, and one can only imagine the possible long-term consequences of this exposure when the screens are powered with electricity from solar collectors. Will we develop cataracts, or slowly go blind? Not one medical study has yet addressed itself to this question, and none are planned.
In their blind zeal to plug us in to solar energy, scientists seem to totally ignore possible fire hazards of solar energy. Sunlight reaching us directly from the sun at naturally safe levels poses little fire threat. But all one has to do is concentrate sunlight, with a simple burning- glass, and it readily ignites combustible materials. Who would feel safe with solar energy concentrators on their roof? Could we afford the fire insurance rates?
These scientists, and the big corporations that employ them, stand to profit greatly from construction of solar-power stations. No wonder they try to hide the dangers of the technology and suppress any open discussion of them.
Proponents of solar energy present facts, figures and graphs to su
Isn't it, perhaps, the whole idea of an automobile, which is inherently inefficient, which needs re-thinking? It seems that support for rail over long distances, and metro-like systems for shorter distances might be more beneficial to all. Trains do not require huge streets, they do not require huge areas for parking, they do not lead to massive congestion, they do not cause deaths on a huge scale. (More Americans are killed every year from road fatalities than were killed in the war in Vietnam).
It may be that the car is too ingrained in the American psyche to dispense with it... but that's no reason to keep it either
((lambda x ((x))) (lambda x ((x))))
That I've heard this argument without reference to the RIAA/MPAA.
Like this one:
http://www.cyber-media.com/aircar/
Even less polluting than a hydrogen powered vehicle, the only exhaust is clean air. Ironically, the air is cleaner going out than going in because it has to be filtered before reaching the engine.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
I can just see it now: pulling up to the fuel station, asking the station attendant to fill 'er up, and watching as he pulls down his pants, defecates in my tank, then fills it up with banana peels, rusty cans and empty Chinese cans, Back-to-the-Future-style.
I'm as green as the next frog, but hydrogen's a LONG way from fueling transportation on this planet. Didn't MIT post a study showing diesel-powered hybrids as the shortest, fastest way to environmental remediation for our roads?
That's not to stop the U of W's process from fueling a large number of fixed polluters. For example, the giant cooling plant (part of a co-gen facility) for the building I work in could benefit from some H2. Bring it on, just don't waste time trying to get it into cars & trucks.
I'll go back under my rock now...
Argh but I get tired of people using the Hindenburg as proof hydrogen is dangerous.
The Hindenburg burned because of the paint that was used, which is chemically similar to rocket fuel.
Hydrogen burns with an invisible flame. Watch the footage - it's not the hydrogen that's the big problem.
If I had to be in a car crash, I'd prefer a hydrogen car to do it in. Gas tank ruptures, hydrogen floats off. Gasoline lays in puddles underneath me.
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Recently it's been determined that Standard Oil before its breakup was actually selling its products for fair prices, amazingly enough. It's not clear whether MS prices for Windows and Office are fair, but it's pretty clear that their price for IE (i.e., free) was unfair at the time.
Microsoft has been convicted of violating antitrust law, yet the court was unwilling to do anything about it. If you or I did something that hurt fewer people to a lesser extent, we'd be in jail. Sigh.
"Should I be concerned about Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Yes, you should be concerned about DHMO! Although the U.S. Government and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) do not classify Dihydrogen Monoxide as a toxic or carcinogenic substance (as it does with better known chemicals such as hydrochloric acid and saccharine), DHMO is a constituent of many known toxic substances, diseases and disease-causing agents, environmental hazards and can even be lethal to humans in quantities as small as a thimbleful.
Research conducted by award-winning U.S. scientist Nathan Zohner concluded that roughly 86 percent of the population supports a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Although his results are preliminary, Zohner believes people need to pay closer attention to the information presented to them regarding Dihydrogen Monoxide. He adds that if more people knew the truth about DHMO then studies like the one he conducted would not be necessary.
A similar study conducted by U.S. researchers Patrick K. McCluskey and Matthew Kulick also found that nearly 90 percent of the citizens participating in their study were willing to sign a petition to support an outright ban on the use of Dihydrogen Monoxide in the United States."
If you want to know more about the problems of dihydrogen monoxide, vist http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
Right! Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are going to mandate every American buy 10 gallons of gas every week to keep the oil industry afloat as the price of oil goes to $30, $40, $50, $60, $70 a barrel and the US has to increase its share of world oil production from 25% to 40% to 50% to 75%.
The reality is that world oil production will peak this decade if it hasn't already.
That doesn't mean that oil will run out, only that there will be no increase in daily supply no matter what the demand. There have been no major oil fields discovered in the past decade, and the important oil fields were discovered more than 40 years ago.
Technology won't magically cause oil to require less energy to extract. The people extracting oil aren't complete morons, they have always extracted the oil that is easiest and cheapest to extract before moving on to the harder and more expensive to extract oil. Millions of people have been extracting oil over the past century and if there was a way to extract hard to extract oil cheaper than today, they would have found it by now because cheaper would mean more profit.
So the only way the oil industry can prevent higher prices motivating consumers to switch to some other, any other, form of energy is to get a mandate passed that requires Americans to buy 10 gallons of gas every week no matter what the price.
Failing that, there is nothing that the oil industry can do to prevent the decline of oil as an energy source.
What we as consumers have to hope for is a million small steps to cheaper hydrogen production. The likelihood of someone coming up with real cold fusion are real slim. Hydrogen as a fuel in 20 years is going to be more expensive than oil as a fuel is today, but the price of oil in 20 years will make hydrogen look cheap.
Turns out its far better to simply bury it. When you recycle it, first it has to be cleaned with highly caustic and dangerous chemicals which must be barrelled after their use (toxic waste).
When you melt it down, it requires alot of heat. The energy to create that heat has to come from somewhere - most often natural gas burners. So recycling glass actually consumes large amounts of fossil fuels.
And why not bury it? Glass is made from melted sand, something we're not likely to run out of soon, and doesn't harm the environment as you're simply putting the sand back into the earth.
Crushed glass makes an excellent landscaping material for constructing terrain like golf courses, then cover it with topsoil.
-
The largest source of hydrogen today is the very same companies that sell you gas. You will still be filling your hydrogen car at a Shell station.
-
converts bio-mass to fuel for futuristic cars? i KNOW i've see that somewhere before!!!
http://kered.org
From what I remember, you pass an electric current through water. Stick your two electrodes in water, on positive, the other negative. Voila, Oxygen (o2) on one end, Hydrogen (h2)on the other end. Water's the easiest source from which to get hydrogen, it's abundant and there's not all this other stuff mixed in with it (just plain old H2 and O2). I suppose you can get it from methane (CH4), or any other organic compound. I remember reading an article a while ago saying how they would use gasoline to power hydrogen cars, they'd seperate the hydrogen from other molecules in the gasoline.
------ Will of Iron, Knees of Jello.
there are still a lot of problems to be solved with hydrogen:
in the meantime, let's improve battery technology, fuel cells, and develop pebble bed nuclear reactor technology...
Behold the power of cheese!
Before talking about hydrogen vehicles, you should read Robert L. Park's "Voodoo Science". It explains clearly why all this hype about hydrogen is just crap.
A friend of mine, Eli Greenbaum, has been getting Hydrogen from algae for three years now, with no metals involved. He just starves them of O2 and they activate a dormant gene that produces a protein that synthesizes H2. See here for the details.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.