Slashdot Mirror
Solar-Hydrogen Eco-House
Cymage writes "An architect in Malaysia has built a Solar-Hydrogen Eco-house, the first in the world that is fully self-sustainable and runs entirely on hydrogen. The house has an electrolyser to generate hydrogen that runs off of solar panels, then that hydrogen is used for heat and electricity for the house. Pretty cool stuff. I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?"
I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?
I wonder how long before...BOOOOOM!
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future," said Kamaruzzaman. "People tend to equate hydrogen with hydrogen bombs, but in fact, it is really quite safe because it is so light that it disappears into the atmosphere as soon as it is released."
Apparently physics is *not* this guys strong suit.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
Isn't it fairly ineffecient to use the electricity to make hydrogen? It seems to me you would get more usable energy by just useing the power the solar cells create directly.
==>Lazn
"I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?"
Apparently, you didn't even skim the article - the physical design of the house is just as important as the power technology. A Prius wouldn't get 60 mpg if it wasn't tiny and aerodynamic.
G
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
Luckily /.ers are libertarian. Home power is a great way to put your libertarian ideals into action! Check out "home power" magazine too--it's all about getting off the grid. Vote Nolan!
-I am an elective eunuch.
Decent batteries are very expensive.
A stack of car batteries, for example, just wouldn't be up to the job - the discharge/recharge cycle would break them (they don't like being more than 30% discharged). The water-hydrolisis thing sounds pretty cool.
By the way, people should RTFA, the hydrogen tank is quite far from the house.
#define struct union
Bioethanol/biodiesel are a gigantic scam.
The petrochemicals required to grow, harvest, and process a gallon of bioethanol are in excess of one gallon. You waste more energy.
Biofuels are a scam by farming lobbies to stir up a new source of income since nobody wants to get with the 21st century and give up family farms.
As you note, in addition to the fabric doping
(powdered aluminum) being flammable, it was an
electrical insulator, allowing the Hindenburg
to act like a large electrical capacitor.
The doping used on earlier Zeppelins such as
the Graf Zeppelin was an electrical conductor,
which allowed static charges to drain off.
Shortly before docking at Lakehurst, the
Hindenburg had passed through some storm clouds
where it picked up a large charge. The fire
began several minutes after she dropped her
mooring ropes, which provided a poor path for
the charge to drain from her frame. As the
charge drained, the potential between the frame
and the skin increased since the skin -- an
insulator -- could not drain. Eventually it
became great enough to draw a spark, which
proabbaly ingited the hydrogen which may have
leaked from cell #4. Captain Preuss had vented
hydrogen from cell #1 TWICE in order to level
the ship before landing, which probably indicates
a leak in cell #4. Hydrogen that was vented
would have dissipated raplidly due to the design
of the vents, rather than pool underneath the
skin, as would happen from a leak.
At the time of the fire, the Graf Zeppelin was
returning to Germany from South America. She
completed her flight without incident, but never
carried passengers again.
They seem this way, until you look at the economics and environmental issues of building the solar cells.
For instance, it costs $50 to $100 million US dollars to build a typical plant, depending on whether they're making crystalline silicon or thin-film cells.
Actually making the cells requires 2900-degree temperatures, and you don't create those with input from a bank of solar cells. The processes produce toxic chemicals, and the more efficient the cell is, the more toxic chemicals are involved in its construction.
Further, the cells only last a few decades, and are not 100% recyclable. The more efficient the cell, the less recyclable it is.
Frankly, I'm surprised the eco-terrorists are standing still for this. They should be protesting in the streets against solar cells.
Hydrogen is just used as an energy storage device here -- the fact of the matter is you can create a self sufficient house running off of just solar-to-battery array for less money.
Saw a TVO show on it recently, an Ontario couple had their whole modern house (fridge, stove, blenders, tv's everything) running perfectly off of a large solar setup, completely off of the grid - and they did it all top to bottom for less than 50K, Canadian! That's right, almost free!
meh, I'm going to live simply with a solar/wind to battery array - we don't need no stinking hot water tanks.
On that note, can anybody point out the latest greatest, low cost, energy efficient PV collectors?
> nobody wants to get with the 21st century and give up family farms.
There are definitely major nasty drawbacks on several fronts to "giving up family farms".
Why not give up 19 century industrialism and bring family farms into the 21st century? Let's call it Sustainable Agriculture while we're at it, that way folks don't have to be related to each other to run one.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
Waiting for the technology to hit mass market? Well, then today's your lucky day. Or rather, three years ago. This solar shingle technology is simple, aestherically pleasing, and relatively cheap (pays for itself in roughly 8-10 years).
And as for it being "too damned expensive," it's funny that you mention that. The argument of the majority of the eco-doomsayers that I know is that oil will run out, and we'll have no viable solutions in place. My counterargument is that we have no incentive to PUT said alternatives into place until oil reaches a level of scarcity that the outlay price of implementing the alternative is less than the price of just burning oil over a period of time. Right now, hydrocarbon fuels are insanely cheap -- cheaper than electricity generated by any other fasion. But with crude production shrinking and demand increasing by almost half a billion barrels per year, we're going to reach that point fairly soon. At which point tons of manufacturers and installers will jump on the bandwagon to further decrease prices of the alternatives.
In other words: the alternatives exist thanks to show-off programs like this Malay house and like that NASA deal. But an oil crunch is the only thing that will spur installation of those alternatives. Oil is simply too easy to use and too profitable to control for solar to show up overnight.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
Hydrogen is probably the perfect storage device for energy derived from small scale and less than optimal renewable sources. The biggest problem with home generation of energy from wind, solare or whatever renewable energy you pick is often the problem of regulating the output to achieve a constant usable powere supply. Many of these renewable energies are difficult to use and made much more expensive by this single requirement. That is why they only build wind and solar farms in certain places whit a constant source of wind or sun. Imaging trying to powere you computer with solar power that cut off at knight and in the day and browend in and out all the time and would often spike 20% higher under high illumination thanthe average. You can use expensive line conditioning to fix the momentary ups and downs but when it goes you you will need a powere storage device like battries. Unfortunately conventional lead acid battries are only 5-15% efficient at charging up and have a limited life not to mention the extra cost. The use of hydrogen can offer an alternative to this.
about hydrogen:
1 - Easy to make trough electrolysis (electricity + water = hydrogen and if desired oxygen)
2 - Electrolysis unlike electronics is fairly insensitive to power fluctuations and does not have to work a 100% duty cycle provided the amount of stored gas is sufficient, so carfull powere regulation is unneeded.
3 - Excess hydrogen could be sold (if there was a demand).
4 - Electrolysis is at least as efficient as battery powere storage
5 - You can easily make a car run on it (imaging DIY home filling)
6 - There are fuel cells that make a 85% efficient conversion to electricity from this fuel (very expensive but NASA has them and mass production could bring that cost down). The use of hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen / oxygen fuel could be one of the world most efficient energy solution but may be not the cheapest.
7 - There are numerous safety innovations that can help reduce fire risk (hydrogen can easily be as safe if not safer than natural gas / propane).
8 - You can easily make a cars that will run on it (imaging DIY home filling) not to mention that care need not be a new one. You can have a conventional 350 big block with all the power you would expect run on hydrogen. The conversion is expensive now, but masproduction would lower that to the cost of a engine rebuild that you may need already. You will not need to fear a explosion in a wreck as there are fuel cells that even if punctured and on fire can not explode as they only release the gas fast enough to burn.
9 - It is a 0 emission fuel that may be used in any place that natural gas could be used.
10 - Hydrogen fuel use can really lower smog. I have seen allot of emphasis on electric cars, however these are not really 0 emission. Fossil fuel was burned someplace to make the electricity (40% efficient process) that charged your batteries (15% efficient). this This means that using an electric car is about 6% efficient. I would bet that '86 Suburban has better energy milage than an electric car. You folks in cites and Ca need to think about that.
*imagine enviromental value "ahem" of a 0 emissions vehicle that would do 0-60 in 8 sec flat.
Some people did survive. Yet it was effectively the death blow for commercial airships. So, one wonders how survivable are landing accidents of heavier-than-air vehicles? That is: was even the hydrogen accident really that much worse than the first that engulfs a plane full of fuel when it goes down? I don't know that a Hindenberg into the WTC would have burned as hot for as long as the planes did.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
Today's PV industry generally recrystallizes any of several types of "off-grade" silicon from the microelectronics industry, and estimates for the energy used to purify and crystallize silicon vary widely. Because of these factors, energy payback calculations are not straightforward. Until the PV industry begins to make its own silicon, which it could do in the near future, calculating payback for crystalline PV requires that we make certain assumptions.
And...
To calculate payback, Dutch researcher Alsema reviewed previous energy analyses and did not include the energy that originally went into crystallizing microelectronics scrap.
And...
For single-crystal silicon, which Alsema did not calculate, Kato calculated a payback of 3 years when he did not charge for off-grade feedstock.
Seems there's some axe grinding going on here...
Good points, but...I don't think it's completely fair to include the energy originally put into crystallizing microelectronics silicon, as they put that energy in to sell it to chip fabs anyway. Since it gets recrystallized for PV use, and would be thrown away otherwise, this is a pretty legitimate thing to do. Dedicated solar-grade silicon operations are slated to come on line in 04...
The latter point is, I think, simply saying that while Alsema did only polycrystalline cells, Kato looked into monocrystalline and got about 3 years (vs. 3.75ish for poly), when he didn't charge for the off-grade feedstock (which, as above, I think is a legitimate thing to do.)
This will be settled with the original-silica-to-solar-wafers processes that we expect to see this year, but I'm not too worried. I'd say you'll see variance much less than +/- 10% in these figures (I won't attempt to engage here in estimating the energy payback of fossilizing plant material to make coal.)
Keep in mind the obvious paradox here, as well. Imagine a 100W solar array lasts 30 years and costs about $300 in bulk. (These are approximately correct current unsubsidized values.) Over its lifetime, in, say, Chicago IL, it will generate about 4,400 kWh. If it was *made* with 4400kWh of electricity, which costs about $.05 / kWh say, for an industrial customer, the electricty alone would cost $220, leaving $80 for all the materials, labor, shipping, factory overhead, salaries, profit, and production line expansion (which by the way is above 36% annually for the industry as a whole.) The math doesn't work out. If, however, the payback period is about 3.75 years, the panel would take about $41 of electricity to make (almost all silicon recrystallization,) which seems anecdotally to be about right.
If you struck a match in a half full fuel tank it would not explode because the air in there would be too rich to support combustion. To start a fire, you would have to spill the gas out of the tank and light the vapors rising off the puddle on the ground. The rising vapors disperse until it goes from too rich and into its flammable range, and then it would burn. If it was not lit off, the vapors would soon disperse till they are too lean, and above that no fire can be started. That is why people gas up at gas stations all the time and don't get blown up too often. Car gas tanks blowing up is for the movies, in reality cars burn in their engine compartments where the fuel is dispersed enough by a broken fuel line, etc, to be in its explosive range. The tank doesn't burn until the fire structurally weakens it so gas and/or vapor can escape, and then it burns. And gasoline doesn't explode unless it is both in its explosive range AND confined. Otherwise it just burns. Movies make explosions with fire because it looks cool.
Hydrogen has a very very wide explosive range. Incredibly wide. If there is hydrogen present, chances are it will blow in the presence of a spark whereas gasoline wouldn't unless the mixture is just right. Hydrogen is always "just right" to burn.
So if you have a slight hydrogen leak in the house, be prepared to go boom. Unless scent is added, you won't smell it either. You can smell propane and gasoline way before it is in its explosive range--that is what makes them safe. And hydrogen may rise outdoors, but in a confined space it isn't going to be clinging to the roof. Convection of air and regular diffusion definitely results in explosive mixtures of hydrogen in confined areas.
That this natural air-conditioning method... used to be known to every person who lived in a house.
Old houses (e.g., in Los Angeles, my old 1924 apt building) had double-hung windows, i.e. that open from the top or the bottom, for a reason: in a given room you open one from the top, one from the bottom, and viola: convection cooling.
Same principle in the original, fanless, candy-colored iMacs, btw. (No fan: the hot air rising from the monitor, drew in cool air through vents below to flow past the processor located underneath it.) Elegant.
It's really sad that this knowledge has been lost; new windows are rarely made that way anymore, and energy is wasted turning on the AC instead...
Perhaps the 20' of bookshelf containing lists of building materials and capacities are there for show?
Perhaps their reworking of clients sketches (we thought THIS would be kinda neat) into something that can structurally work is an illusion? (that's nice, but lets do THIS to get the same effect and something that won't cost $10,000 and perhaps fall in a 70mph wind
The one who helped a builder friend design and build a house in Tahoe who insisted that, "No, you can't have a roof with this sort of structure since it will collapse with the amount of snow that sits on the roof" was praise as his HUGE BEAMS that were insane worked fine while a shed the builder tossed up just to protect some gear over the winter collapsed in December (seems snow melts, gets a little water dense, freezes and weighs a lot as it builds up).
The certification has several really hard structural questions with variables that you just can't know. The right answer is apparently, "consult a structural engineer."
However, for most work, the architect is responsible for knowing that a 20' long 2x12 on 8" centers can support this much weight stably. I know this because I was looking to add a floor to a (tall) "crawl space" and was looking at 2x8s and it was 'splained to me that I'd be back down 5' in the dirt unless I only stored styrofoam peanuts).
"designers" say "oh this would look cool". If fact we have a lot of "systems interior designers" here developing apps.
Architects are responsible for egregious design problems, if they are involved. Builders and civil engineers are responsible for
ensuring it's sane and within code (also, because some architects DO get it wrong. Just as builders do. more eyes = GOOD in things that last 20-500 years.
building it right.
And yes, engineers have been arrested. Several in my home city for allowing substandard concrete pours (don't pour structural pieces in deeply freezing weather - they don't cure right and will collapse.)
And yes, there are plenty of degreed architects who are working under a licensed architect (with stamp) who learn this. You don't come out of ANY school and get to build a large bridge. Engineer or architect.
There are houses like this in Austria, the Netherlands, Baveria and Swizerland (NOTE: Last two links are to non-English PDF files but contain pictures).
These houses are referred to as "Nullenergiehaus" in German. Searching for this term on Google will demonstrate that at this point already a whole industry has evolved around constructing these buildings. How else could Europe ever hope to fulfill the CO2 demands imposed by the Kyoto treaty?
It is nice to see that slashdot spends some attention on this but Michael is way of the mark when copying the claim of the article that this is the first fully self-sustainable Eco-home.