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?"

Comments

Not a bad price.

[Neil Blender]

250000RM is $65,800 US. I would guess it would cost more in the US though.

Re:Not a bad price.

[theMerovingian]

No kidding! That house totally rocks. It was designed by an *architect* over 4 months, and was constructed with an experimental climate control system - for $70k.

I'm cashing out my retirement funds and moving to Malaysia, the US sucks.

Re:Not a bad price.

[Xzzy]

> It was designed by an *architect* over 4 months

Given your emphasis on "architect", I am led to believe you are surprised that an individual educated such is designing buildings.

So could you explain to me precisely which profession designs buildings where you live? :)

Re:Not a bad price.

[Anonymous Coward]

So could you explain to me precisely which profession designs buildings where you live?

The engineers that implimented the TCP stack. I expect my bathroom to be rooted next week.

Re:Not a bad price.

[karnal]

"The engineers that implimented the TCP stack. I expect my bathroom to be rooted next week."

Just make sure you're not using the facilities when it happens. That would probably hurt.

Re:Not a bad price.

[ArsonSmith]

Perhaps he lives on the ISS, where they get the luxury of having *Rocket Scientists* design their home.

Re:Not a bad price.

[joggle]

I presume that he's shocked that the house could be custom designed by a real architect for 4 months and still cost only ~$70k. The architect fees alone would be a fortune here in the US.

Re:Not a bad price.

[dasmegabyte]

Not if we ship our houses over there! And best of all, it'll be good for the American construction market as well!

Re:Not a bad price.

[torpor]

Wow, that is actually a very interesting question.

In some parts of the States, the differentiation between whether your house was a "stock design" (i.e. from a catalog), or was designed "by Architect", actually has an influence on the value of your property.

Interesting cultural thread ... and I agree: Americans should move to Malaysia, and live like Malaysians do ... it would be good for the rest of the world!

Re:Not a bad price.

[MrChuck]

Perhaps you're unaware that architecture is one of the lowest paying professions there is. Most architects can make solid secretarial wages for years and years (that's AFTER the master's degree).

The few big name architects CAN make a bunch of money. And we're all Internet billionaires here too, right? (my stock options are 2-ply ... mmmmm, soft)

Now an architecture firm might charge a lot for design, but that usually means that for 4 months, you are using a staff of highly trained people and their equipment (rolls and rolls of e-size paper) and resources (you must use 6x12 beams spaced on 12 inch centers here to support this amount of weight), plus the bonus that for whoever stamps the plans that are filed, they are pretty well perpetually liable.

Someone slips on an icy sidewalk? The guy who designed the building 20 years ago is in the suit.

So next time someone calls themselves a software "architect", mock them and refer to them as "software interior designers".

Real architects get 6 years training and brutal exams on par with the bar. Too many "systems architects" and the like get some training on Microsoft Project and wonder why this web application they designed isn't scaling like it should. And most often, they are NEVER accountable for systems that fail.

Re:Not a bad price.

[joggle]

Thanks for the edification. I knew that architects were closer to 'true' engineers than system architects, but wasn't aware that most architects were poorly compensated. You always hear about huge architect firms being payed millions of dollars to design such and such building and I've personally stayed at a house in Las Vegas that was owned by a local architect who primarily designed houses if I remember correctly (in a gated community, by far the coolest/largest/best designed house I've ever stayed at--left an impression on me for sure). I sort of thought of architects as lawyers on the pay scale.

Re:Not a bad price.

[dcmeserve]

...and resources (you must use 6x12 beams spaced on 12 inch centers here to support this amount of weight), plus the bonus that for whoever stamps the plans that are filed, they are pretty well perpetually liable.

I think you're thinking of the Civil or Structural Engineers. Though perhaps such persons can be sub-contracted by the architect's firm.

Architects are the ones who say "ooh, this would look cool!" The engineers are the ones who reply, "Uh... no, that will collapse under its own weight!" It's the civil engineers you hear about being held accountable when a building collapses. (Actually, I've only heard of this once, in China, and the civil engr. was actually arrested in that case.)

So anyways, that's where the other $70k goes.

Re:Not a bad price.

[Doug Coulter]

I own a solar powered business and a solar powered house, and I think this thing is retarded and overpriced. The numbers quoted seemed like they had to be just for the solar part, not the whole thing. 42 panels? We use 16 for the business, and 10 for the house, and either system can back the other up. Why waste energy converting to and from hydrogen (it's nowhere near 100%) when you can just use the electricity as it comes in, saving only a little for nightime use in whatever sort of batteries you favor? PV panels are EXPENSIVE, but worth it if you don't waste the power. This design was obviously motivated by where the designer works. He's got a hammer, and now everything looks like a nail. I wouldn't want to be around when that hydrogen-embrittled storage tank goes up. A better choice of battery for lots of reasons will be the redox Vanadium Pentoxide cells. These store energy in the electolyte, which can be stored in tanks for "infinte" capacity, and they cost a lot less than fuel cells, because they don't need a fancy precious metal catylist. These are already being used as factory-wide UPS systems in Japan.

Re:Not a bad price.

[Jeremi]

Hey mi, it was a joke!

(You'll have to pardon us Americans -- after three years of being made to look like idiots by Bush, we've pretty much lost our sense of humor)

Re:Not a bad price.

[MrChuck]

I'll let my S.O. (whose now a system admin) and my 2 best friends (who design houses and do FEMA work to review plans to make sure something is sound) know that.

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.

Re:Not a bad price.

[Jeremi]

If anybody made us look silly, it was Clinton -- lying through his teeth over a non-issue (but under oath) and disgracing the presidency.

I won't try to defend Clinton's actions, but I must say that Clinton's lying about his personal life didn't kill anyone. Bush's lying about WMDs and Al-Quaeda ties to Iraq has already cost about 10,000 people their lives (including around 700 Americans). Now that America is discredited in the eyes of the world, Al Quaeda will use our government's unabashed duplicity as a tool to recruit more terrorists, amd so I won't be at all surprised to see that figure continue to grow in the future.

Bush's unwillingness to bow to the "public opinion" seems a rather positive trait too.

Sometimes, public opinion is well founded. Most people, when confronted by near-universal criticism of their policies by many of their own closest allies, might re-evaluate those policies. Not the Bush administration, however -- they are so convinced that they know everything that they won't listen to anyone. Bush's unwillingness to bow to "common sense" is a rather negative trait in my opinion.

Re:Not a bad price.

[mi]

I must say that Clinton's lying about his personal life didn't kill anyone.

All I said with certainty, is that he made us look silly -- the post I replied to blamed Bush for making Americans look idiotic.

But now that we are venturing farther off-topic, I'll add, that these Clinton's lies robbed him of the moral authority to invade Long Island, causing him to quickly pull out from Mogadishu, and not invade Iraq. Either the lies prevented that, or they were just other indications of his lack of scruples, which prevented that.

Bush inherited the reasons for Iraq war from Clinton. It still seems, he also sincerely believed Iraq to be still in posession of WMD, so I don't see him lying about that one.

Now that America is discredited in the eyes of the world

I think, leaving Saddam Hussein alone despite his not living up to the cease-fire agreement of 1991, would've done a lot more damage to our credibility. Future and present villains see, that we come after word-breakers. At least, after the most egregious ones. Gaddafi may have discussed his surrender for a while before, but actually surrendered only after seeing captured Saddam on TV, for example...

Al Quaeda will use our government's unabashed duplicity

This is foolish. The most damaging act of Al Quaeda -- the 9/11 attack -- happened before the supposed "duplicity" was exposed, and went into preparation long before the president, that you and Jeremi so much despise, was elected. Our sin? Entering the sacred lands of Saudi Arabia, which we did to defend Kuwait -- a Muslim nation -- with the entire world's approval...

Re:Not a bad price.

[Jeremi]

It still seems, he also sincerely believed Iraq to be still in posession of WMD, so I don't see him lying about that one.

The Bush administration claimed to know exactly where the WMDs were hidden. It was just a matter of going in and getting them. But now that we've gone in, they are nowhere to be found. If that's not lying, then it's certainly unbelievably gross incompetence, and the result is the same.

I think, leaving Saddam Hussein alone despite his not living up to the cease-fire agreement of 1991, would've done a lot more damage to our credibility.

This is a false choice -- it was not a matter of either doing a unilateral invasion, or doing nothing. We could have continued to contain Saddam, continued inspections, and verified that WMDs were or were not there. If we had verified that WMDs did exist, we'd have few problems getting support for war. If we had verified that they did not exist, we'd have avoided the whole mess we are in now.

Future and present villains see, that we come after word-breakers.

Actually, they see that our military is completely tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there is little the USA can do for the forseeable future about other countries. Do you think North Korea is worried about us invading them now?

This is foolish. The most damaging act of Al Quaeda -- the 9/11 attack -- happened before the supposed "duplicity" was exposed

You missed the point. I said "will use", not "did use". Obviously, W's Iraq invasion didn't cause the 9/11. But that doesn't mean that his invasion didn't encourage the radicalization of hundreds or thousands of more terrorists.

"Jeremi and I" don't despise the president, so much as despise the damage he has done to our country's position in the world. The USA used to be a beacon of hope, a model for other countries to look up to. Now it is practically a rogue nation, a country that even our allies dislike and fear, rather than respect. Being hated the world over does not make us safer.

Re:Not a bad price.

[mi]

The Bush administration claimed to know exactly where the WMDs were hidden.

This, actually, totally defies the charge of lying. If they lied, they'd leave "escape clauses" in their statements (and argue the definitions of "sex" and "is" now). They did not. Foolishly overconfident -- may be. Lying? No.

This is a false choice -- it was not a matter of either doing a unilateral invasion, or doing nothing.

It was exactly that choice. The "containment" did not work -- for 12 years. Sanctions were crippling the country, but the scumbag prospered (as did some UN officials, as we are now learning). He did not prove, he did not have WMDs, as he was supposed to -- in fact, he repeatedly hinted and alluded to the contrary -- to keep his neighbors on their toes. Hundreds of Kuwaiti prisoners were unaccounted for. He kept paying families of suicide Palestinian bombers -- $10K per explosion. The choice was either to invade or to keep producing N+1st irresolute resolutions.

Bush's taking the right stand may be the only reason, I'll vote for him... Too bad, he could not master something more multilateral (read: make others help pay for the war), but that was not a good reason to sit idle.

Actually, they see that our military is completely tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, so there is little the USA can do for the forseeable future about other countries. Do you think North Korea is worried about us invading them now?

Libia was certainly worried enough. Syria and Iran, probably, are too (100K American soldiers at their borders!). So little is known about North Korea (50 years of "containment"!), it is difficult to say... Of course, it would've been better if our dear allies supported us. But with USSR gone they think, they don't need us any more and let their suppressed inferiority complexes overwhelm their judgement...

Obviously, W's Iraq invasion didn't cause the 9/11. But that doesn't mean that his invasion didn't encourage the radicalization of hundreds or thousands of more terrorists.

And my point was, that's irrelevant. There were more "radicals" already, than Al Qaeda could use. They are a dime a dozen -- look at Hamas, the suicide bombers are their cheapest weapon... They don't even need to teach them to fly.

Re:Not a bad price.

[shlashdot]

It's easy to knock it, but you of all people should be aware that with a nice sized solar system, there are times when you have surplus energy. At these times efficiency is not so important if the power can be used. Sure grid connecting is great but some of us have no desire to pay for the lines and service charges, and it's not really a long term solution until we solve the storage problem. I think flow batteries are interesting but they surely have drawbacks as well. So I think it's cool as an experiment no more and no less.

If you think that's cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should check out my methane-powered nightmare house on nacho night.

Re:If you think that's cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

Farts are laughing gas.

Re:If you think that's cool...

[pr0f3550r]

"then that hydrogen is used for heat..."
This is good because it gets real cold in Malaysia.

Hydrogen Abundant?

[tokki]

I'm guessing this was a translation issue:

"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future," said Kamaruzzaman.

Re:Hydrogen Abundant?

[bflong]

He probably meant most abundant in the universe, which would have been a correct, if useless, point.

Re:Hydrogen Abundant?

[Anonymous Coward]

He probably meant most abundant in the universe, which would have been a correct, if useless, point.

I don't think he thinks it's a useless point. I hear his next venture is going to be in vacuum cleaners, since space is full of it.

Re:Hydrogen Abundant?

[xs650]

Malasia is very humid.

Re:Hydrogen Abundant?

[Esion Modnar]

Burning nitrogen? Maybe it's just me, but there's something funny about that...

Re:Hydrogen Abundant?

[Short Circuit]

Nitrogen is the most stable diatomic elemental gas I know of. There's a triple bond between nitrogen nuclei, so it takes an awful lot of energy to rip apart the molecule.

Even if you do, and you react the resulting N3- ions with something else, you're not going to get much energy out.

Hmm...you might be able to store energy by ionizing and storing the gas. But that sounds like a lot of energy. I'll have to ask my chem teacher.

Re:Hydrogen Abundant?

[Short Circuit]

Yup. It'd be neat if we had a passive filter to remove nitrogen from the air entering the engine. That would be a simple and effective pollution control mechanism.

Re:Hydrogen Abundant?

[NichG]

The atmosphere is not predominantly water vapor. It's mostly nitrogen (79% I think), then oxygen, CO2, and trace gases (which includes water vapor). If the atmosphere were 79% water vapor, we'd need either: extremely low pressure, in which case we suffocate or extremely high temperature (near boiling), in which case our proteins denature. 100% humidity doesn't mean the air is entirely water vapor, it means that the amount of water vapor in the air has saturated (which occurs at small fractions of the total unless you're close to or above the boiling point of water).

So nitrogen IS the most common in the atmosphere. Now, I'd want to do a few back-of-the-envelope calculations to determine whether it's still most common if you include oceans, since even though the volume of the atmosphere is much larger than that of the oceans, the density is much less.

Re:Hydrogen Abundant?

[cagle_.25]

dry air:

79% N2

21% O2

1% Ar -- very useful for filling light bulbs with

1% CO2 + Ne + Kr + others

on really humid (100% rel. hum.) days in the tropics, water can hog up to about 7% of the airspace, pushing the other percentages down somewhat.

Re:Hydrogen Abundant?

[MachDelta]

It'd be neat if we had a passive filter to remove nitrogen from the air entering the engine.

...Until your pistons melted into a nice puddle at the bottom of the crank case. Burning pure-ish oxygen in an engine is actually 'a bad thing'(TM), since it gets so damned hot. (3000 degree oxycetaline welding, anyone?) You need some inert gas (such as nitrogen) to take up space in the chambers to keep the combustion temperatures within reason. Of course, due to the imperfect conditions of the internal combustion engine, some of this nitrogen (and other elements) turns into nasty stuff that comes out the tailpipe. Which is why modern cars have things like catalytic converters, EGRs (exhaust gas recirculation), etc.
Its a bit of a nessecary (and convenient) evil, unfortunatly.

Re:Hydrogen Abundant?

[Ed_Moyse]

It was a joke. Burn nitrogen and you (can) get ... laughing gas.

Heading off at the pass....

[The Ape With No Name]

Yes, hydrogen is explosive. Yes, it can be used safely. No, there is no chance in a properly engineer application for hydrogen to make this house go BOOOM! like the Hindenburg. Give up, Dick Cheney is not paying attention.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[maxbang]

A leak is not only dangerous, but it can also be comical. For instance, I inhaled some and then lit a cigarette. I've never seen a ribcage fly quite that far before.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[ScottGant]

yes, this is probably what is going to slow down hydrogen fuel cells in the US with fears that cars will start exploding like the Hindenburg (even though it was the Aluminum paint on the skin of the airship that caused the explosion I belive...at least this is one of the theories).

Yet people drive around with a tank full of gasoline which we all know is VERY explosive....and people cook with tanks full of propane that also is explosive. (no, I don't sell propane and propane accessories).

But you say Hydrogen and they think Hindenburg and the Bikini Atoll...(as in the Hydrogen Bomb).

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[jwthompson2]

In a properly engineered environment, what about when stuff starts to break and wear out? The risk is a bit more of an issue than you seem to admit. I would have the same problem using Hydrogen in my home as I currently do using natural gas, hence why I don't use gas and instead opt for normal electrical power from Entergy. I would be much more apt to convert from standard power to say solar or wind or something less potentially hazardous as piping flammable gases throughout my home.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[azav]

Actually, from the reports that I have heard, hydrogen flame is not a big explosion - something that we are all afraid of. Also, the word is that the Hindenburg's frame continued burning and that was the reason for all the carnage.

The researchers for BMW or Mercedes have studied this with interest because of all the hydrogen powered car work that's been going on.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[at_kernel_99]

Proper engineering accounts for durability. Also please note that electrical wiring breaks and wears out. I don't have statistics, but believe there are more electrical fires than natural gas explosions in living units.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[be951]

Actually, it appears that hydrogen would be less dangerous than natural gas (both due to the fact that it has lower energy density and that is diffuses rapidly into the air), which millions of people use year in and year out without the disasterous results you anticipate. It is true that natural gas accidents occur, but I believe electrical fires and cooking accidents cause more house fires in the U.S. Not sure if the old fall-asleep-with-a-cigarette type is as common, but I hear more often about people buring down their houses with candles or kerosene heaters (usually trying to refill them while running or too hot) than I do about natural gas.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[anopres]

A blimp in the bikini? No thanks. But if it's not a blimp in the bikini, I prefer no bikini atoll.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[be951]

Also, the word is that the Hindenburg's frame continued burning and that was the reason for all the carnage.

It was the fabric covering. And while it was indeed a disaster, only 36 people died (including one of the ground crew), meaning 62 of the passengers and crew survived.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[Short Circuit]

If inhaled hydrogen before...It didn't go very far before something in me forced me to exhale and search for oxygen instead. I swear, it was an accident!

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[westlake]

It seems each winter we see more deaths from carbon monoxide poisoning than fire when using "alternative" fuels like kerosene, wood, propane gas, etc. I would be concerned about monitoring any combustable, odorless, tasteless gas that might collect in pockets that could become dangerous.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[spacecowboy420]

As an aside, the hindedburg did not burn due to hydrogen but because of the flammable coating on the outside of the hull. If not for that fact, the incident would have been far less dramtic.

http://engineer.ea.ucla.edu/releases/blimp.htm

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[jaylene_slide]

I make no claim to know what's true, but here's a little of what I found on the subject.

Addison Bain's working theory (RealPlayer link)

An About.com article


slide

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[c4ll7]

there is a great video of 2 cards with a rupture in the fuel tank in the same place. and one Hydrogen one Gasoline the hydrogen is gone in seconds and escapes straight up into the air while the gas drops and causes the whole car to burn and the hydrogen car has nothing more than 1 sq inch spot that was 120 degree F for a few seconds.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[weiyuent]

Yet people drive around with a tank full of gasoline which we all know is VERY explosive....and people cook with tanks full of propane that also is explosive. (no, I don't sell propane and propane accessories).

Liquid gasoline isn't explosive, it's flammable. If you atomize gasoline in air or oxygen, and ignite it in a confined space, then it's explosive. It's true though that, because it sticks around in liquid form, it makes for nasty, long-burning fires.

In addition to being flammable, liquid propane is moderately explosive because it is stored at pressure. But at room temperature the pressure in these tanks uusally doesn't exceed about 100psi. For comparison, racing bicycles usually have their fabric & rubber tires pumped to 125psi. A propane fire nasty because with fuels stored under pressure you will have expanding conflagration, but nothing much happens if the gas isn't ignited.

Hydrogen, however, doesn't liquefy above 20 Kelvins, so it has to be stored under extreme pressure (over 5000psi) in order to achieve a useful energy density. So a ruptured hydrogen tank is likely to explode even if the gas isn't ignited. Drop any scuba tanks lately?

Now keep in mind that in real car crashes (not the ones you see on TV), exceedingly few result in a fire. Which kind of fuel tank would you rather have in your car?

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[Ch_Omega]

"....and people cook with tanks full of propane that also is explosive. (no, I don't sell propane and propane accessories)."

Why would I belive that you did? :)

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[ScottGant]

it's kind of a joke from Hank Hill on the cartoon "King of the Hill". He sells propane and propane accessories...it's a common line on that show.

But I guess it's kinda lost on the millions of people that have never seen the show. hehe

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[ScottGant]

I would say gasoline in a bottle with a burning rag attached is kind of a bomb...I should know, I had a chunk of glass rip through my leg from a thrown moltov cocktail in a riot that broke out in Huntington Beach California many years ago.

But I've seen tests on hydrogen tanks in fuel-cell cars (still experimental of course) that are as safe as gasoline tanks. If I find the link I'll certainly share it here.

But I can see your points. More testing is needed.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[Loudog]

If we all went out and implemented this design now, it would quite likely take down what's left of the power grid. We'll need a distributed power grid with better controls before this becomes practical.

-- Lou

That's why Dick don't care.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[tylernt]

Actually, I really have inhaled hydrogen. Chem 101 experiment, I think it was putting a penny in a strong alkalai liquid with zinc grains and then boiling. The prof said the little puffs of white smoke created were hydrogen bubbles and they would make you cough. He was a right about the cough, at least. No way you could suck in a balloon of hydrogen the way you would helium!

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[blitziod]

well why not just put the hydrogen tank outside yoor house and use wire to carry the power in? It could be several feet away( farther in rural houses ) and burried. ALso you could put a small concrete wall on the house side of the tank to deflect any fire or explosion. Natural gas must actually touch the appliance that it runs.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[kauttapiste]

In order to make your house go BOOOM, you should manage to fill the entire house with hydrogen in a very precise manner. Hydrogen actually requires a mixture of air and hydrogen that is very precise, more so than with gasoline. And we who didn't learn our physics from Hollywood flics, know that gasoline doesn't really explode either.

So a hydrogen explosion inside a house because some hydrogen had leaked from the tank (and by a miracle didn't escape to the atmosphere at once), is simply impossible.

Go back for some chemistry classes.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[cptgrudge]

I saw a documentary about hydrogen power on TV a while back.

There were two closed containers of liquid. One had regular unleaded gasoline, the other had liquid hydrogen. A sharpshooter took aim at each of the containers and put a bullet through each of them.

The gasoline container exploded fantastically. Nothing left of it.

The hydrogen container fell off of its stand and had a small blue flame protruding from the side.

Re:Heading off at the pass....

[jwthompson2]

The concrete wall may or may not be necessary. But if a hydrogen powered generator, external to the home, were used as opposed to actually piping combustable gases in my home I would be much more apt to consider it.

Wanter and burners/stoves...

[michrech]

The hydrogen tank is located some distance from the house, and a small diameter pipe connects it to the utility gas line in the house. The gas is used as a domestic heater to provide hot water to a stove or burner, and operate a fuel cell to produce electricity for other appliances.

Why does a burner or a stove need hot water? Wouldn't the water put out the flame? =]

Re:Wanter and burners/stoves...

[michrech]

DOH! That should be WATER and burners/stoves! Silly me!

Re:Wanter and burners/stoves...

[Blastercorps]

I assume they meant get water FROM a stove/burner. As in use the hydrogen directly as fuel for burning.

PDF Mirror

[MrRuslan]

http://www.narvakitchens.com/Solar.pdf

Not a physics major

[bravehamster]

"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.

Re:Not a physics major

[iamthelung]

you mean chemistry?

Re:Not a physics major

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

All hydrogen released in the atmosphere floats up and collects at the edge of the atmosphere.
I believe this is the reason why you're not allowed to smoke on an airplane.

Re:Not a physics major

[dasmegabyte]

He's an architect. He's probably great at phsyics. His weak suit is more likely English. He's probably saying "atmosphere" and meaning "universe," "bombs" and meaning "explosions."

Re:Not a physics major

[iNetRunner]

Well, given a little accident with fire and his hydrogen powered house really _could_ disappear into the atmosphere. So maybe he is right..

Re:Not a physics major

[ColaMan]

It's more likely that english is not his (or the sub-editor's) strong suit.

Most people in Malaysia speak...... Malaysian, ya know ;-)

Not to rain on his parade...

[I'm a racist.]

What sort of fire hazard is this place? Assuming the hydrogen is stored in a combustible state (which is very likely), and that a very large volume will be stored (which is also very likely), this could be a bit of a death trap.

Tom Petty would not approve.

I'm not really concerned about the danger of the place. Maybe his neighbors are though. I was just pointing out one of the drawbacks...

Re:Not to rain on his parade...

[Neil Blender]

What sort of fire hazard is this place? Assuming the hydrogen is stored in a combustible state (which is very likely), and that a very large volume will be stored.

Plenty of people store large tanks of propane outside their house which they use for the stove, water and even lighting. It is very common in mountain and beach houses.

Btw, welcome back.

Re:Not to rain on his parade...

[Noehre]

How is this any different than the 2 gigantic natural gas tanks I have sitting out in my back yard?

Lots of people use natural gas for heating, and you don't hear about their houses blowing up.

I imagine in a commercial unit, they would add trace amounts of mercaptans so you can smell a leak, if there is one.

Re:Not to rain on his parade...

[Lord_Pain]

I don't think this is any more dangerous then someone with a propane tank in their back yard. In the mid-Atlantic region of the US there are quite a few houses with propane as natural gas lines are not available to them for one reason or another.

Not a flame ( no pun intended ) just opinion. :)

Re:Not to rain on his parade...

[Sylver Dragon]

First off, storing volitile gases in tanks outside of the house is a common, and noramlly safe practice. Granted, when the fire swept through Oak Hills here in Southern California last year, there were some big booms, but that is a very rare occurance. Second, hydrogen is safer to store than propane is. Hydrogen, when release from a tank, tends to spread out, or mostly up, too fast to create a good explosion, unless you are storing the hydrogen mixed with oxygen, and I doubt that they would be that dumb. Overall, I'd much rather have a huge tank of hydrogen outside my house, than a huge tank of propane. And (insert diety here) forbid that I would end up driving around sitting on a very volitile liquid for hours on end, oh wait, I do, and its considered safe.

Re:Not to rain on his parade...

[modecx]

In a proper storage system even fire would have zero impact.

I've seen test footage from the late 70's, when LNG (Liqefied Natural Gas)/LPG (Propane) was first being put into cars and trucks. The Department Of Transportation, of course required much testing, and damned if these tanks aren't tough. They're aluminum, wrapped with a fibreglass mesh composite.

They dropped cars with these tanks in the trunk from cranes (equivalent to 80Mph crashes), shot them with pistol rounds, shot them with M16's, burned them on top of stacks of skids, and even tried to explode them with dynamite (no effect).

The only thing that had any effect at all on the tanks were the armor piercing rifle round, and extremely hot fires. The rifle round penetrated, but it didn't cause a fire, or any explosion. The tank just sat there and vented.

The fire increased the pressure inside of the tank to it's bypass pressure, and some gas vented (but didn't ignite, despite being surrounded by a huge fire...because there was no oxygen to make it burn).

Just try any of that with a regular automotive fuel tank.

People all excited about hydrogen and LNG/LPG are idiots, plain and simple. Gasoline is a far more hazardous fuel than any of those. Ask the Army. It's no wonder all (most?) US military vehicles use diesel fuel (besides some of it's more obvious benefits).

Re:Not to rain on his parade...

[WinterSolstice]

Well, since propane has a "garlic" scent added, can we improve on that by giving hydrogen an "onion" or "pizza" scent? That would rock!! -WS

Re:Not to rain on his parade...

[b-baggins]

Um, Propane requires a larger vapor concentration and a higher activation energy to ignite. The danger with hydrogen is that it is a VERY reactive gas, and the flame is VERY, VERY hot. So hot, in fact, that it is invisible.

Re:Not to rain on his parade...

[DonGar]

My understanding was the Hydrogen will burn with an unusually wide variety of air mixtures (there is a chemistry term for this, partial pressure or some such)? And that much easier to get Hydrogen to burn than gasoline fumes and such. This property is both useful and dangerous.

The other problem explained to me is that a Hydrogen leak can burn with a flame that is close to invisible, meaning that you can just walk into it without understanding the danger you are in.

Also, it's harder to stop Hydrogen from leaking. This isn't so much a safety issue as an efficiency problem.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Not to rain on his parade...

[SedentaryZ]

I don't think that the temperature of the flame is the sole reason why a hydrogen flame is not very visible. The flame temperature of hydrogen isn't that far away from the temperatures of natural gas or gasoline (2045, 1875, 2200 respectively). Likewise, burning ethyl alcohol has a much lower temperature flame while remaining nearly invisible.

Re:Not to rain on his parade...

[ChrisMaple]

Mixed with and combined with are not the same.

Re:Not to rain on his parade...

[Ch_Omega]

"They dropped cars with these tanks in the trunk from cranes (equivalent to 80Mph crashes .... burned them on top of stacks of kids."

Some would argue that this testing went a bit over the top.

The house that NASA built

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

I recall seeing "the house of the future" once, built by Nasa engineers. Solar-powered, thermally efficient, geo-thermal power, yada yada yada yada.

All protected by a security system, whose password was "1978".

The year the house was designed, built and shown to the public. The same year I saw it.

I'm still waiting for all this great technology to hit mass market.

And you know why it won't? It's too damned expensive.

Re:The house that NASA built

[nordicfrost]

Although we're not too hot (pun intended) on the soal power issue, the scandinavian houses seem to be quite energy efficient with good insualtion and a good deal of us use thermal power. The thermal power is simply water heated in the crust of the earth, so you save some of the energy otherwise wasted on heating it to that point. A friend of mine lives in a thermally heated, very thouroughly insulated house (with good ventilation), and they spend a tiny, tiny amount of dough on heat. He recons the thermal system would be paid off in six years, making it a total of ten years in investment. He also applied for a grant from SINTEF for repairs, and got it. Not a bad deal.

Re:The house that NASA built

[IWantMoreSpamPlease]

I know, I'm from Denmark, now sadly transplanted to the USA.

But with small countries like that and Iceland, it pays to have more efficient means of heating/cooling a house. Just not so in the USA.

Re:The house that NASA built

[Paulrothrock]

Computers, too, were once extremely expensive, and I'm sure people said they would never take off. In fact, Babbage once said there was only a market for five computers in the world.

The more people who buy one, the lower the price. I'm extrememly interested in this, because it means I don't have to give all my money to some massive corporation every year. Just once, and then they can take their fossil fuels and shove them up their collective ass.

Re:The house that NASA built

[jbrader]

Don't forget all those "house of the future" newsreels from the 50's

Re:The house that NASA built

[Syberghost]

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.

Re:The house that NASA built

[phoenix_rizzen]

Geo Thermal isn't all that expensive up here in Canada. We have an entire subdivision with over 200 houses (plus golf course and restaurant) completely heated via geo thermal here in Kamloops, BC, Canada. Additional price for house, less than $2000 CDN.

There are also plans to incorporate geo thermal into other subdivisions around town, although I don't think any have gone beyond the planning stage just yet.

Re:The house that NASA built

[dasmegabyte]

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.

Re:The house that NASA built

[WOV]

However - we make almost none of our electricity from oil here in the US.

Also, economists tend to talk about those sorts of resource-to-resource transitions as though they were instantaneous chemical reactions. In reality, they're discontinuous, inefficient, "jerky" and rather prolonged. Viz. gas lines and street riots. The rational thing to do is therefore to build these markets and technologies as quickly and cheaply as possible - before we have to. Because having to is very painful and prolonged.

Re:The house that NASA built

[MAXOMENOS]

This solar shingle technology is simple, aestherically pleasing, and relatively cheap (pays for itself in roughly 8-10 years). After which, you need to replace the cells....

Re:The house that NASA built

[lordkimbot]

Thanks for the link to SunSlates! Good info. Eventually I will need a roof replacement, and using solar powered roofing systems has been a growing consideration. I've been looking at metal roofing systems, but this is another good prospect:

http://www.oksolar.com/pv/architectural_standing _s eam_metal_roofing.html

There is a growing movement to energy alternatives, and the growing volatility in the oil market and oil producing leader nations make alternatives imperative.

Now to figure out a use for Linux/BSD in managing this new system...

Re:The house that NASA built

[blitziod]

good point..this house was built for 65,000 US. Of course labor in maylasia is prolly dirt cheap, but the high tech materials are likely more costly than here. The idea of using solar power to convert water to hydrogen sounds like a great "free ride" to hydogen home power. It is likely MUCH more efficent than current solar cells. I doubt we will ever see hydrogen powered cars( although GM has some technology that allows fuel cells to use regular gasoline in teh works)be a common place thing. Electric cars, or my favorite, fly wheels - AND- hybrids make mroe sense.

Re:The house that NASA built

[adamfranco]

Colorado State Mechanical Engineering is do some cool R&D on Mass Production of [Thin-Film] Photovoltaic (PV) Modules which could drastically reduce the cost of PV cells in the future.

Re:The house that NASA built

[horos2c]

> 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

nuclear..

> Right now, hydrocarbon fuels are insanely
> cheap -- cheaper than electricity generated by
> any other fasion.

Actually, that's not quite true. The operating costs of a nuclear power plant are roughly equal to those of a large coal-burning plant. And nuclear power is still in its infancy.

Anybody who says that nuclear is unsafe, expensive, etc. is IMO like those people in the 1960's who said 'well computers are expensive. And big.'. By its very nature, we have quite a ways to go in making nuclear plants more efficient and safer - the energy density is 10 million times that of coal. We've got quite a few multiples to go before we reach the optimal 'lowest cost reactor'.

Coal on the other hand, is pretty much dead as far as R&D benefits are concerned.

horos

Re:The house that NASA built

[nordicfrost]

LOL! I didn't think about that term before right now. I ment, as I think you understood, a house heated partly by the constant heat from the earths crust.

Why convert to hydrogen?

[lazn]

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

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

So that you can have power at night. Why not use normal batteries? Because power from hydrogen (whether through combustion or using a fuel cell) is cooler!

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[tindur]

So how are you going to store energy for a cloudy day?

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[jwitch]

I assume the hydrogen is being used to store the energy from the solar cells. This way, there is still a source of energy when the solar cells are not functioning (night, cloudy day) However, i'm sure it would be more efficient, as you said, to use the electricity directly from the cells during the day.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[raygundan]

I would assume they do so, unless they're making more then they need at that particular moment. At which point, they save the excess power. Sure, it's lossy, but so are all power storage systems. At least this one doesn't involve hundreds of pounds of lead and gallons of acid...

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[SenatorTreason]

Storage?
If you are not using the electricity from the solar panels, conventionally, it is stored in huge battery arrays. With this setup, it is converted to hydrogen and can be stored more easily in a big tank, or, if the tank is filled, that electricity is then fed back into the grid directly. That hydrogen tank probably doesn't need to be maintained like a battery array, and, if you'd like to upgrade, a bigger tank, or another auxilliary tank is probably cheaper than the equivalent batteries.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[shystershep]

I'm no chemist/physicist, but the way I understand it for the fuel cell to convert the energy stored in the hydrogen to a usable form is more efficient than directly using sunlight -- photocells have terrible efficiency.

So this house is supposedly self-sustaining because it stores rainwater and then uses solar power to free the hydrogen, which is used in the fuel cell. My question is, if you're getting enough water to convert to hydrogen, are you getting enough sunlight to power the electrolysis process (& vice versa)?

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[Gaewyn L Knight]

Two words "cheap storage" beats the pants off of batteries for long and short term... also can use more efficient heat transfer techniques with gas heating.

Even provides you backup incase you loose the power grid and can't use it as a "battery"

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[SkinnyJoe]

I think the iodea is to store the PV energy as hydrogen so that you still have power during dark hours. It would be more efficient to use the PV electricity directly and just use the excess for electrolysis. When the Hydrogen tank is full, then sure sell the excess back to the grid.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[Aneurysm9]

who says you have to use rainwater? Build your house near a stream et, voila, no lack of water.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[c]

It seems to me you would get more usable energy by just useing the power the solar cells create directly

And how do you store the solar power? A hydrogen storage tanks is basically a (relatively) eco-friendly battery.

c.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[Kindaian]

Not exactly...

With the electrolyse you get a "buffer" of hydrogen where you can "accomulate" energy for future use.

If you would use only energy... you would have to give all the excess to the grid (at a low price) and when you needed it (like at night) you would get energy from the grid (at an expensive price).

One of the first uses that the fuel cells will be to be nearby other power sources to serve as accomulators to avoid the need to shut them down and allow a more steady energy production...

Cheers...

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[medication]

It is fairly ineffecient to use electricity to make hydrogen. I'm guessing that the reason he's doing it is to use hydrogen as a fuel for the stove and such. That being said I'm not sure why he isn't just using an electric stove - anyone have any idea what the effecieny differences are between cooking with gas vs. cooking with electric? The best info I found regarding this says "The electrochemical efficiency of electrolysis is fairly high. As the graph below illustrates, PEM electrolyzer stacks exhibit an inverse relationship between efficiency and "current density" (or amps per square foot). When low levels of current are applied to the stack, resulting in lower output of hydrogen, the efficiency of the process can exceed 85%. That is, more than 85% of the BTUs of electrical energy are converted to BTUs of hydrogen chemical energy." article - This article is about using a "reverse" fuel cell to create the hydrogen. It goes on to include an analysis of cost/mile that frankly is a bit suprising(ie using this reverse fuel cell technology could lead to .07$/mile as opposed to a $1.70/gal .085$/mile - car performance being variable)
Something tells me that this guy isn't using this tech. though.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[Mikkeles]

I wonder how they pressurize the hydrogen in the tank. It would seem to me that a relatively sophisticated pumping system would be needed.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[NorthDude]

I always wondered if, in those case when the setup is stationary (as it is the case here), if it would not be more efficient to just use (lets say) a big block of steel to store potential energy...

They could just use a small electric motor to lift up the steel block up a rail of some kind so they would accumulate potential energy (mechanical batteries?). Then, when they would need to use the stored energy, they could let this steel block go down slowly (with reduction gears etc etc) which would in turn drive a generator...

I really don't know, but I would think that much less energy would be lost due to friction and heat in such a setup then in an electrolysis setup... What is wrong in this idea?

Someone knowledgable could explain me?

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[pla]

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.

Think "batteries".

Storing enough electricity for a whole house for a few days (might have rain for a week, thus very little electricity produced) takes a bank of batteries, and charging control equipment, that cost as much as the PV array itself, and worse, they tend to only have a useful life of 5-10 years (20 for some of the really high-end ones).

Storing hydrogen takes a tank, a low-volume compressor, and a network of cheap copper or cast iron pipe (not sure which you'd use for hydrogen - Bottled LPG uses 3/8ths copper, while "on-grid" NG uses 1/2" cast iron). Only part that can wear out, the seals on the compressor - A sub-$20 replacement part every couple of years.


I do have a question about why they chose to use PV to electrolytically produce hydrogen, though - Consumer-grade PV only gets an operating yield of around 20% and drops over time, and electrolysis of water gets 80% efficiency. Right off the bat, you've wasted 85-90% of the energy from the sun. Catalytic Photolysis, however, can get 40-60% efficiency, and directly produces hydrogen from water + sun (and better, as research into the catalysts involved advances, they will go up in efficiency and down in price).

So, why PV rather than photolysis? Not only could he get a higher yield, but the up-front cost drops substantially (in US dollars, I'd estimate well under $5k, vs $15-20k for a large enough PV array).
for

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[Venner]

Well, flywheels are used to store kinetic energy. And they can be made pretty darn efficient at it. There was a 1996 article in Discover magazine about a man named Jack Bitterly that wanted to use the darn things to power automobiles. In many ways, that article probably instilled my resolve to later get a degree in engineering.

Here's an "update article" from 2000 in Discover about it.
Re-Energizer

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[dasmegabyte]

Furthermore, batteries are rather toxic, made up as they are of strongly ionized and reactive substances. Hydrogen, on the other hand, is just hydrogen.

BTW: if you don't want hydrogen, I've heard good things about "kinetic" batteries as well. Essentially, you get a big heavy magnetic, suspend it magnetically in a "frictionless" vaccum, and with your excess solar energy, you start it spinning with electromagnets. Then when the sun goes down, you generate power from the spinning magnet passing through those electromagnets.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[SnappleMaster]

The devil's advocate in me points out that in an area where there is not enough rainfall there are not likely to be enough streams for say a city's worth of these houses. Or there may be no streams at all.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[c4ll7]

it's quite easy the eletrolosis , reverse fuel cell is able to great it's own presure in the H O2 splitting process up to 10,000 psi i understand.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[Dun Malg]

I always wondered if, in those case when the setup is stationary (as it is the case here), if it would not be more efficient to just use (lets say) a big block of steel to store potential energy... They could just use a small electric motor to lift up the steel block up a rail of some kind so they would accumulate potential energy (mechanical batteries?). Then, when they would need to use the stored energy, they could let this steel block go down slowly (with reduction gears etc etc) which would in turn drive a generator... I really don't know, but I would think that much less energy would be lost due to friction and heat in such a setup then in an electrolysis setup... What is wrong in this idea?

I think friction would cause problems for such a device on a small scale. The mechanical conversion of energy from a slow-moving heavy weight to fast moving rotating axle is too complicated. They do, however, do something similar on a macro scale with the power grid as a whole. During non-peak hours, the excess generating capacity is often used to pump water uphill into a reservoir. Later, when demand increases, they use the reservoir to generate power hydroelectrically.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[artson]

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.

As is amply pointed out, the hydrogen storage tanks are as efficient and more flexible than batteries.

This is a brilliantly simple implementation, combining many techniques from both active and passive solar. It is not particularly suited to the local region though, I suspect. Aren't they in the monsoon region? That would seem to preclude efficient generation of electrical current during the monsoon season.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[strider_starslayer]

water purification? I think you have electrolysis confused with another process; electrolysis is aided by salt, because the conductivity of the water is increased, hence you invest in salt and a littel stirrer on the bottom for electrolosis; and the salt keeps anything from growing in the water, as well as not needing to replaced much.

As well, the fule cell/compressor while more expensive have more 'shelf life' then the equivalent in batteries , so while they may be more expensive initially, the lower maintainanance on them theoretically makes them a better buy.

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[G-funk]

I imagine that a useable flywheel would require a whole shedload of weight and/or rpms. Wouldn't the rotaional inertia of such a device render it useless in a car?

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[blitziod]

i thought he actually made a car that worked some what in a proto-type?

Re:Why convert to hydrogen?

[PantsWearer]

Usually, they use multiple, smaller flywheels counter-rotating. Small applications do need really high RPMs though. There are definite problems (that were never really overcome) when it comes to containment in car accidents. High RPM flywheels shatter and the pieces travel some distance with a lot of force. My guess is that the containment system added so much weight that the light flywheels weren't economical.

Methane

[eclectus]

I want a house that can run on Methane. That way my mexican cooking won't go to waste.

Hmmm, but what kind of collection method can be used? uh, nevermind. I withdraw my request.

Re:Methane

[InternationalCow]

If you do enough Mexican cooking you can actually cook for free by virtue of the methane released from your intestinal tract after ingestion of all those beans. Just hook up your colon to the stove and you're all good to go!

Re:Methane

[eclectus]

The whole 'just hook your colon to the stove' part just sounds uncomfortable, but it'll sure keep the rest of the family out of the kitchen when I cook.

(out of the kitchen & down the street at Ruby Tuesdays...)

Re:Methane

[InternationalCow]

Na, just use enough lube (KY will do nicely) and a soft rubber duct. You WILL definitely be the sole ruler of your kitchen :)

No Conversion Possible

[glpierce]

"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.

Re:No Conversion Possible

[Knobby]

I agree with the basic premise of your comment, but I wanted to point out that the Prius isn't really that tiny. Sure, the interior space is smaller than a Suburban, but it's roughly the same size as a Camry. I own a 2004 Prius there is much more interior space than was available in my previous car, a '92 Honda Accord.

Re:No Conversion Possible

[Cymage]

Actually, I did read it and I understand the other aspects of the architect's design. There are lots of reasons that this may not work for certain houses (too much shade, house designed too ineffienctly, no land for hydrogen tank, etc). That doesn't mean that it can't work for any existing houses. I think as the technologies are refined, some of these problems will be worked out.

Re:No Conversion Possible

[Paulrothrock]

Sure, the physical design is important to get ultimate efficiency, but a similar system could provide most of the energy for other installations. All you really need is a southern exposure and room for a tank of hydrogen and a fuel cell. Almost every house in my area has these. For the third time, I'd love to have one of those systems.

Re:No Conversion Possible

[glpierce]

Height/Width/Length (in)
Camry: 58.1/67.9/175.0
Prius: 58.3/70.7/189.2

Weight (lbs)
Camry: 3,142
Prius: 2,890

That's over a foot shorter and 250 pounds lighter - nothing to sneeze at.

Re:No Conversion Possible

[Azghoul]

Not to be pedantic but what you've written says that the Camry is 14.2 in shorter than the Prius, not the other way around.

04 Prius is obviously not meant as a cargo hauler, but tiny it is not. I just put 10 3-cubic foot bags of mulch in the back. :)

Cost of transforming energy?

[WegianWarrior]

There is no way to have 100% effecency in transforming energy from one from to the other - so we have a loss from transforming sunlight to electricity, and then a loss transforming the electricity to a storable chemical (hydrogen), and then yet another loss as it's transfered back to electricity to run the house. Sounds like they are wasting power by having unnecesary steps here...

Now, I'm not a rocketscientist, and I dont research fuelscells and batteries - but would it not been just as efficient, or even more efficient, to just store the electricity in a batterybank? Unlike in a car, weight and to a certain degree volume isn't a limiting factor in a house.

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[notbob]

Battery banks require replacement more often causing eco-waste.

Great way to kill an eco-house... add in some lead & acid batteries.

The hydrogen would not run out and be a reusable container, far less maintenance.

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[shrykk]

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.

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[merlin_jim]

Now, I'm not a rocketscientist, and I dont research fuelscells and batteries - but would it not been just as efficient, or even more efficient, to just store the electricity in a batterybank? Unlike in a car, weight and to a certain degree volume isn't a limiting factor in a house.

It's all about cost and energy density. The energy density in hydrogen is far greater than that of a similarly sized battery bank. And while a fuel cell is expensive, so are batteries. The difference being that this house can add extra energy storage just by installing an extra tank. To do that with batteries you've gotta buy a whole bunch more batteries.

That and batteries are cranky, require special circuitry, can vent harmful and corrosive substances (unignited hydrogen is neither harmful nor corrosive), and require replacing every 5-7 years in an application like this. And battery electrolyte can't directly power heaters, stoves, or air conditioners...

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[fireduck]

one potential use of the hydrogen, not previously mentioned by other posters, is as a replacement for natural gas. if i'm not mistaken, natural gas heaters/rangetops/etc. are more efficient than electric. So with a hydrogen powered house, you can use the hydrogen not only for power, but also for cooking, the water heater, etc. and further dissociate yourself from the utility grid.

don't know how the overall efficiency of this compares to just using electric for everything.

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[Noehre]

Indeed, natural gas heating is far, far more efficient than electric heat.

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[Don Calamari]

I've read the only method of cooking that cannot be done with hydrogen gas is baking. The resulting water vapor makes the oven too damp for cakes, breads, etc. They come out all soggy.

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[Laur]

Indeed, natural gas heating is far, far more efficient than electric heat.

Actually, converting electricity into heat is 100% efficient! Of course, what you really mean by efficiency is the total efficiency of the system including electrical generation. Assume your local power plant uses a natural gas turbine to produce electricity (actually, most energy production is still done with coal, but we'll assume natural gas for this). This has an efficiency of at most 40% (can't remember the exact values). After the electricity is generated it must be transmitted to your home, with all the transmission losses associated with this. Finally, the electricity can power your electric heater. Compare this to just burning the natural gas directly, and you can see why a price difference of an order of magnitude between electric and gas heating it not at all unreasonable.

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[Noehre]

Yeh, that is what I meant. :)

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[cens0r]

All the gas ovens I've ever used do not have the combustion in the actual oven. The combustion takes place in a chamber below the oven and then radiates up through the floor of the oven. This would keep the water vapor out of the oven.

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[orn]

Sounds like they are wasting power by having unnecesary steps here...

Actually, using a battery as storage converts the electrical energy to a chemical form. Using the battery converts the chemical back into electrical potential. (This is identical to what storage as hyrdrogen is doing.)

About the only technique to avoid convertion, would be to keep the electrical energy on a superconducting ring... Not terribly practical just yet, but maybe someday.

A fuel cell is analogous to an electrical cell. (A battery is composed of multiple electrical cells.) The only differences between a fuel cell and a wet-phase electrical cell is that the fuel cell (generally) uses a catalyzer to aid in the chemical process and that the fuel cell can be refueled. Both of those could be done with batteries... but they aren't usually.

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[tomjennings]

Various notes:

* DUH! if it contains energy it's dangerous.

* Hydrogen isn't a "fuel" here, it's short-term energy storage. The very concept of "fuel" is 19th century, get over it.

* LONG TERM RELIABILITY is likely a massive goal here, not slashdot sweetness.

* Batteries are an inefficient chemical transformation too, plus are messy, expensive, wear out, require frequent replacements, and are technically very fussy. A big empty metal tank is CHEAP, RELIABLE and MAINTAINABLE.

* Household systems have gotta be simple, reliable, not prone to spectacular failure when prodded by know-nothing owners and repairmammals, installable by Home Depot employees. Hence the apparent lack of gimcrackery; the smarts, where present, are in the design.

* Likely, efficiencies gained by using PV electrical during the day and stored H2 at night are offset by additional system complexity in switching between the two. I bet the optimization wouldn't gain more than 10% or so and at greatly increased cost.

* Hydrogen is the most common element in the UNIVERSE. He may have misspoke, but he's not an idiot.

* No system will have universal application. Because it's not good in E. Overshoe Alaska doesn't mean it's worthless. My laptop fares poorly underwater, blame Sony. Hell, simple apses and shade would save billions in cooling costs in the SouthWest U.S., and requires only cave-mammal tech, but a few extra brain cells which seem to be in short supply in the building industry.

* Stop looking for a single "magic bullet" technology that will "solve the world's X crisis" foreach X (list); -- what, are you reading the pamphlet from the 1939 World's Fair or something? Broad based tuning of widespread systems is where it's at. Or would be, if corporate profits weren't the only goal of the western world. How embarrassing for us.

* "Fully sustaining" was a poor phrase to choose, he should be called on that, but see above elsewise.

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[dasmegabyte]

The energy density in hydrogen is far greater than that of a similarly sized battery bank

Right. This is the whole point of hydrogen-based energy. To get hydrogen, you start with water and add energy. When you use hydrogen, you get (some of) that energy back and end up with water as a byproduct. There's no nasty greenhouse gases, no CO, no wierd pollutants, just H2, O2, and some O3. Which makes it extremely useful, if not efficient.

The only problem is that hydrogen is hard to get. Using sunlight to do it can be expensive. But like anything else, as development increases, costs will fall off...and eventually, it could be cheap and ubiquitous enough for use everywhere.

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[Trinition]

"Sounds like they are wasting power by having unnecesary steps here..."

Consider the typical coal and oil we get energy from today. How easy is it to have bilogical life forms soaking up the suns energy to organize themselves and reproduce, only to be consumes by predators that die, or die directly, wait a millions of years for them to be compressed by a slow burial process and heated by geothermal energy, causing chemical reactions resulting in oil and coal then is then recombined with oxygen to relase the energy to heat water, which drives a turbine, which then turns a generator to actually generate electricity.

I think splitting water into H2 and O2 for a little while (hours or days) and then recombining it is a lot simpler concept, and probably more efficient.

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[ocie]

The energy density in hydrogen is far greater than that of a similarly sized battery bank.

Depends on if you mean mass density or volume density. 1 kg of Hydrogen does store more energy than 1kg of battery, but you must store Hydrogen under pressure before 1L of hydrogen will store the same amount of energy as 1L of battery (about 1.6 atmospheres, I think).

Re:Cost of transforming energy?

[barakn]

Since the house is connected to the grid, the most efficient method would have been to skip hydrogen or any other storage entirely and sell/buy electricity to/from the grid. The whole hydrogen system is unnecessary. It would make sense if the house wasn't on the grid, but then the hydrogen storage capacity would have to be significantly increased for sufficient power during long periods of cloudy days. Yeah, I know, it's just a demo......

Might cost more for some of us.

[Thunderstruck]

It seems like a great idea for Malaysia, but lets consider North Dakota:

1. Heat: Its a high plains desert in a northern climate. If I need electric heat I'm going to burn a lot more hydrogen. Winters get down around -30F

2. Entertainment: Nights last longer up here, so I can't live without my 500w sound system, my Sun Lamps and outdoor lighting.

3. Oh yeah, water for Hydrogen production is in short supply.

It may be a few more years before technology catches up with us, right about the time the local theatre starts showing Phantom Menace.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[Thunderstruck]

One of my best friends is over there right now, he just found out his term has been extended up to 120 days.... This sucks.

On the other hand, out here in the dakotas we DO have Ethanol and Bio (Soy) Disel fuels that reduce our consumption, but only by about 15%. Fortunately that number keeps rising every year, so perhaps we can look forward to the day when troops are sent to North Dakota instead of Iraq?

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[Noehre]

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.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[CompressedAir]

It may be a few more years before technology catches up with us, right about the time the local theatre starts showing Phantom Menace.

Just in case you have not heard, it is not a very good movie.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[Noehre]

>3. Oh yeah, water for Hydrogen production is in short supply.

Tell that to Devil's Lake or the Red River Valley. They have plenty of water to go around.

The southwestern part of the state is dry because we got fucked over by the Army Corp of Engineers when they pitched us the idea for the Garrison Dam project. It was supposed to provide irrigation for half of the state. Nearly none of that water now goes towards irrigation, and the management of the lake by the Corp is designed to maintain water levels for downriver cargo shipping. Of course, this means our lake and river levels are perpetually low during even mild droughts as they drain the lake to keep the river high in Missouri.

Oh, and in North Dakota we can just use wind instead of solar to produce the hydrogen. Apparently we have the highest wind capacity of any state, if someone actually coughed up the money to a) build the turbines and b) build more transmission lines. We also have a hojillion tons of coal and plenty of power plants, but can't export any more electricity because of lack of transmission capacity.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[Thunderstruck]

I've heard this argument, but I've also worked in ethanol production areas. Its more a question of technology. The energy cost of producing these fuels includes the construction costs of facilities, the development costs of the technology, and the conversion of existing systems to a new fuel. Over time all of these are ameliorated and technology will continue to advancee.

I hope.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[Mikkeles]

Here in Halifax, they're using biodiesel using waste fish oil as an additive to run (some of) the buses. The fish oil waste would otherwise have to be disposed of as garbage. So far, the buses run fine and no one is objecting to the smells. It is intended to expand the use of this.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[Noehre]

Using waste products is fine, but growing crops specifically to convert to biofuels is not.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[javaxman]

Ok, so you live somewhere that : 1. winter temperatures -30F. 2. has poor water supply. This is where you choose to live because of ???

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[aszoth]

Yep your correct. ND has the largest wind potential of any state in the union. and it's estimated that if harnessed the state could provided 50% of the electricty needs of the entire country. The largest problem with establishing wind farms in ND is the states has not offered the tax incentives, that many other states have. This has made it more economical for bussiness to build wind farms in other states. The other issue would then be licencing wind rigths from the various farmers over the state. But if done on a co-operative level I believe it's fesible. I can just see it now my cousins sloloming the windmills in the combine.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[Strange Ranger]

> 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.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[dasmegabyte]

Really? Because the Department of energy's report claims "Biodiesel yields 3.2 units of fuel product energy for every unit of fossil energy consumed in its life cycle." That's from 1995. A similar report came out in 1998.

I'd like to know what numbers you know of that are different, maybe based on more modern numbers and not some study produced during the invention of bioethanol in the 1970s. Because processes in general become more efficient over time -- it's hard to believe that a 6 or 9 year old report was SO wrong that the 3.2 units they claim were actually negative.

I'm not doubting you (well, okay, I am). I just would like to see this counterreport. Back in 1995, I still trusted government scientists.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[Venner]

Well, yeah, that's all understandable. And your home might not be able to self-sustain. Think about it this way though.

You don't have gasoline as a natural resource out there, do you?

No, no one does. It needs to be refined and processed somewhere then piped or carried by truck/train to stations. But, unless you're really out in the hinterlands, you don't think, "Oh no, the nearest gas station is 3 states away."

The aim is that, hopefully, hydrogen will become as ubiquitous as gasoline. Gasoline generators will be replaced by hydrogen-electric and whatnot. And if you've currently got a natural gas well on your property or soemthing, well, why not just keep on using it? As you say, not everyone will be able to produce their own, much like not everyone can refine their own crude or can have a waterfall and turbine on their property.

Hydrogen will (hopefully) greatly reduce pollution, etc. It will never eliminate it. And frankly, it's a piss-poor world that had to rely on only one option for power.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[khallow]

I'd rather live there than in New York City. Less messed-up people per capita in North Dakota and of course, far less people overall. Besides whining about the weather is a favorite pasttime in places like that.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[khallow]

If it's such a good deal, then they'll come to North Dakota. I don't think it's a bright idea to start bribing wind mills to come to North Dakota.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[medelliadegray]

I live in Northern MN, so my winters will be very similar to yours. I am no scietist, but with many of the new insulating technologies coming out, it may yet be 'feasable' to have a house completely off 'the grid.' at least in the summer it would be totally possible.

Winter would be interesting for one of these systems. I imagine one would need to get a compressor of some sort to compress the hyrogen/liquify it? (perhaps someone with knowledge could clarify if its possible/safe to store liquid hydrogen) once the hydrogen 'reserve' for winter is solved, you also have to worry about your elecrolosis water tanks freezing. (perhaps those can be stored in the basement /shrug)

Its been my dream to have a self sufficent house using this very method. Perhaps i will be able to do this one day as well, however, in northern MN it may prove to be a big challenge....

anyone have info on how much of a solar power reduction can be expected during the winter in the northern climates?

i wonder what something like this would cost in USia

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[aszoth]

It's not bribing, it's making it economical. Businesses will go to the best deal. (at at off shoring). Appealing to greed to get businesses to make the rigth choices, is largelly what the princeple of Enviromental Econimics is based. And it's been show that those types of approches are often more effective at inciting change then direct government regulation.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[blitziod]

well you could use a windmill in N. Dakota, instead of solar. You would save a few bucks too.

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[slackerboy]

Biodiesel and Bioethanol are not the same thing. One of the reasons that it can take a lot of energy to produce fuel-grade ethanol is that it needs to be distilled (just like vodka) and that's a relatively energy-intensive process.

Biodiesel uses a very different process (see this portion of the document mentioned by o'reor.

I don't think you can assume that teh energy costs are the same for the two different fuel types. (Plus, a some of the ethanol/biodiesel actual gets mixed with traditional gasoline and diesel for use in cars rather than being used straight.)

Re:Might cost more for some of us.

[khallow]

My point is that if they aren't doing it, then it isn't economical. Maybe North Dakota needs to look at improving its infrastructure, but as I was saying, just bribing companies to put token environmental projects in your backyard isn't a good approach especially since a lot of people are very good at getting that kind of money with minimal work.

Not entirely self sufficient...

[ErikTheRed]

When the hydrogen tank is full and household appliances are not in use, the excess electricity will be injected back into the grid.

On the other hand, if the PV panels do not generate enough electricity to power the electrolysis system, power will be drawn from the grid.

Even though the house may be self-sufficient in the net balance of things, it's still using the grid as a "virtual battery" to accomodate periods without sunlight.

Re:Not entirely self sufficient...

[Mongo222]

Only after the stored hydrogen in the tanks is depleted. Normally it generates electricity during the night with a hydrogen powered fuel cell. If you have a lot of overcast days, or are a heavy electricty user you might have to take power from the grid.

Re:Not entirely self sufficient...

[bug-eyed monster]

I wonder how practical this is while it's still connected to the grid. AFAIK solar panels are costly to manufacture, producing as much pollution as they would prevent otherwise, so they're best used where access to the power grid is unavailable. This way you can justify their use by saving on grid connectivity. This isn't the case here, so it's cool as an experiment but not very practical.

Re:Not entirely self sufficient...

[Gaewyn L Knight]

Which it wouldn't do with a sufficiently sized tank and solar cells... but I would guess that an inverter is a lot cheaper than a couple gas storage tanks :}

Re:Not entirely self sufficient...

[MikeHunt69]

Even though the house may be self-sufficient in the net balance of things, it's still using the grid as a "virtual battery" to accomodate periods without sunlight.

AFAIK, this is normal for this kind of setup. ie. solar power -> battery banks -> Inverter. The sun dosen't shine all the time :(

Hmm..

[Caedar]

"The electrolyser has a capacity of 0.54cu.m per hour" What are the chances that someone is going to make a joke about this? (If you don't get it, you're not looking hard enough or you don't have a dirty enough mind)

Re:Hmm..

[michrech]

"The electrolyser has a capacity of 0.54cu.m per hour" What are the chances that someone is going to make a joke about this? (If you don't get it, you're not looking hard enough or you don't have a dirty enough mind)

Ummm.. I think you just did...

Solar energy might give you a negative bill

[ehiris]

I live in Arizona where there is a lot of sun and from what I hear some people that use solar energy to generate electricity get money for the extra electricity their installation produces.

Re:Solar energy might give you a negative bill

[c4ll7]

there is also a few hydrogen houses in arizona made by the american solar hydrgen association in fact i have writen a paper on this exact system several years ago and upload in on differnt p2ps

Re:Solar energy might give you a negative bill

[Teclis]

I live in Southern Alberta where we have plenty of wind (A good day here you would consider a tropical storm in Florida).

Anyways,
A local Farmer Put up a wind generator and took himself right off the grid. For this, he was sued by the power company!

If they would pay me to produce power, I'd strap a turbine onto my roof!

Attention libertarians.

[Thinkit4]

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!

Nice to see someone trying.

[platypibri]

I don't think we give near enough thought to the way that we are ravaging our planet. Don't get me wrong, I love tech. But I am dying for a freeway safe electric car. Even then though, we use dirty tech to make electricity. It can't last, but we are addicted to it.
I hope someone does come up with a way to make clean technologies widely available.

Re:Nice to see someone trying.

[Penguinshit]

Someone already did.

The crying shame is that they only leased (not sold) them and when GM ended the lease program they forced the drivers to return the cars (even though the majority repeatedly appealed to GM to outright sell them the cars).

Re:Nice to see someone trying.

[platypibri]

Yes, unfortunately I missed out on this. An EV1 would have been right up my alley. I keep telling myself I should get a Gem, but they do have some mobility limits that would make the transition currently impossible. *sigh*

Re:Nice to see someone trying.

[c4ll7]

i agree and i have good news for you you can make hydrogen with algea by stressing it so all you need is water plant and sun and as well there are living machines (plants) that can clean water you could in effect make a whole water cycle system with just glass and some plants no electronics needed. once we reach paridy we are set. oh ya and a 2nd newly discovered method is to grow corn or other celulose and make ethonal from it and put it thru this new catylist that a mit prof. invented. to get H it's said to get 50% of the suns energy far more than any solar panel at 17%. especialy with the advancments in ethanol production you get more than 1:1 out of this.

Conversion kits already available

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?

They already exist. They're called matches. They will convert any regular house into carbon dioxide and water vapor. You will have to figure how to control the rate of reaction and store all the excess heat that is released in one go. The rate at which you must supply new houses may also be cost prohibitive.

Re:Wonderful but I hope the architect isn't stupid

[maxbang]

Imagine being off the grid in an urban setting!...So if the main tank blows, you still have electricity so you can charge your mobile to dial 911.

Heh, if someone else in my urban setting isn't calling 911 when my H2 tank blows, I'm guessing my neighbors don't want my hippie ass around anymore.

Re:Why Solar - Hydrogen?

[bruce_the_moose]

One word: Storage. Also, the hydrogen is used as a fuel source for cooking and heating.

Heating in Malaysia

[kiwipaul]

I believe they meaning heating the lava lamp. There is no way you need heating in Malaysia they take out the heat pump sections of air con units in that region as nobody uses them!

Interesting project

[Phreakiture]

It is an interesting project, but, I fear, taps into the hydrogen-mania that seems to have gripped the world lately.

I don't believe there is a major reason to be concerned about the safety of the hydrogen. I don't believe it is actually much, if any, more dangerous than other things that we live with every day (methane, gasoline, diesel, batteries) for reasons that vary by what particular thing we are comparing it to.

I would wonder, though, if by powering the house from a fuel cell run from a hydrolizer, are they doing seriously better than if they had used a battery bank? For the hot water and the air conditioner, they might be doing better by running them directly from hydrogen, but what about the household electrical supply?

Also, might better efficiency be realized by uniting the DC bus of the solar panels with that of the fuel cell, at least unidirectionally? What I'm saying is, doesn't it make sense to send electricity straight to the house from the solar panels when it is available, rather than sucking H2 into the fuel cell to get it? Yes, H2 production would drop according to household load, but H2 consumption would drop further.

Just a few random thoughts.

Safety of Hydrogen

[gevmage]

Hydrogen (gaseous that is, not liquid) is actually a reasonably safe fuel. As far as explosiveness, it's roughly equivalent to, say, natural gas, and much less explosive than acedalene.

Keeping hydrogen in a tank (outside of a house or in a vehicle) is fairly safe. If the tank is ruptured, the hydrogen is so light that it leaks into the air and floats up and away very quickly. (Unlike, say, gasoline, which tends to sit on the ground, mix with air, and cause explosions). (The article said that the H2 tank was _outside_; having it inside _would_ be dangerous.)

By the way, the reason that the Hindenburg was such a horrific accident wasn't primarily because it was filled with Hydrogen. It was because the body of the blimp was painted with a substance that was essentially rocket fuel.

Re:Safety of Hydrogen

[weiyuent]

While you're correct that hydrogen isn't much more combustible than conventional fuels, the fact remains that it is a difficult fuel to store safely.

If you want to store molecular hydrogen in liquid form, you have to do so cryogenically since its boiling point is 20 Kelvins (-253C, -423F). Needless to say that's impractical for most applications.

If you store it at room temperature, very high pressures (over 5000 psi) are necessary to achieve an energy density comparable to conventional fuels. Storing anything at high pressure is dangerous, whether it's combustible or not (drop any scuba tanks lately?).

To make matters worse, molecular hydrogen is small -- at the molecular level nothing is "solid" and so hydrogen will pass through most conventional materials! Even hydrogen stored in steel tanks will leak away through the "solid" walls in a matter of days. It is also very reactive -- it will corrode and embrittle materials it is in contact with (especially metal). Not a good situation for something stored at high pressure!

While there are promising technologies on the horizon such as metal hydrides and carbon nanotubes, there is no economical means of storing hydrogen as of yet. For now it remains in the domain of niche applications.

Re:Safety of Hydrogen

[WolfWithoutAClause]

Actually, storing hydrogen for a house is no problem at all. It's just a pressurised metal container- there's no particular restrictions on how high the pressure needs to be or heavy the tank is or anything.

OTOH, a lightweight hydrogen fuel tank for a car- that's hard. If you want to move it around, then it's heavy (if you include the weight of the tank), or expensive (if you liquify it.)

But, if you just want a tank of hydrogen for your house- easy.

okay...?

[Johnny5000]

I'll admit I didn't RTFA but

how much heat does a house in Malaysia need?

and why not just run directly off the electricity that the solar panels produce, rather than create hydrogen and then generate electricity off of that?
I would think that the laws of thermodynamics would make that a rather inefficient process.

Re:okay...?

[bishop32x]

heat is not always used in terms of heating the house, think hot water...

Also the use of Hyrdogen as an intermideiate step is more ineeficent when direct solar power is avialable, the only problem is there are these things calles "night" and "clouds" which prevent the solar panels from working. BTW, weren't there all ready some houses generating electricity and selling back to the grid(I can think of a few in Maine).

Re:okay...?

[Designadrug]

What gets me is that this house can't exist in the form they describe. One of the holy grails of solar power research is a system that will fit onto a single house and generate enough current to power a refrigerator. (Think about it - 8-13 Amps at 110 or 240 volts, all day, every day, day and night. Thats a lot of juice.) Unless there was an enormous breakthrough in solar panel efficiently recently and Slashdot missed it, I don't see how this house can really operate in a self-sustainable manner. Admittedly, the *reduction* in environmental impact would be huge and kudos for that - but I like my beer cold and that's going to require the grid I'm afraid.

Hindenburg

[addie]

I'm sure many /.'ers are aware of this, but the fact that the Hindenburg was filled with Hydrogen had very little to do with the disaster. The problem was the coating of the balloon, which was highly flammable and susceptible to static buildup (someone provide more details if possible). Add in the metal frame, and as soon as a small spark erupted it arced across the whole balloon and the rest is history.

Hydrogen is pretty safe, if you know what you're doing. But a good point the Hindenburg can teach us is that all elements of a system must be inspected with respect to each other, in order for something to be truly safe.

Re:Hindenburg

[slickwillie]

In effect, the Hindenburg was coated with solid rocket fuel.

Re:Hindenburg

[Mysticalfruit]

The stuff that they painted the Hindenberg with was basically thermite.

Re:Hindenburg

[xs650]

Wow, that just goes to show you should read the labels carefully before you paint anything.

What a bunch of dummkopfs.

Re:Hindenburg

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hindenburg

[Trackster]

Thanks addie, it's nice to see an informed reply quickly negate the parent's lack of information.

I'd also like to add that the Hindenburg did not go "boom" at all and if it did so many people would not have survived .

not fully self sustaining

[SkinnyJoe]

On the other hand, if the PV panels do not generate enough electricity to power the electrolysis system, power will be drawn from the grid.

This does not sound "Fully" self sustaining to me. Although darn near as close a possible.

If you can do this for a house...

[StressGuy]

Then you should be able to do it for a yacht or larger boat. It would be really cool to see somebody sail around the world on eco-power.
--
now, let me anticipate a few responses....

1) Ummmm...what about sails?
A: Sails don't generate heat and electricity.

2) Cloudy days?
Can also use wind generators in addition to solar power.

3) Cloudy windless days?
ya got me there....

Re:If you can do this for a house...

[Penguinshit]

I'm sure it happens a lot in +/- 5 degrees Latitude..

They don't call them The Doldrums for nothing...

Re:If you can do this for a house...

[frankmu]

what you can do is have a clipper ship go around the pacific and create and collect hydrogen, then dock and send it into a national distribution system.

Re:If you can do this for a house...

[Tin Foil Hat]

If you are not interested in getting every last bit of speed out of your sailing yacht and you power requirements are light, you could easily attach a water driven generator that charges the batteries. The drag wouldn't really be enough to cause a problem (though it will be noticable), and should provide more than enough power for things like running lights and GPS units.

Obviously, judicious use of electricity is necessary here: no loud sound systems, high power computers, or CRT monitors. You would want a gasoline or deisel generator to accommodate something like that.

Re:If you can do this for a house...

[c4ll7]

3 use wave power. or that other one that pulls cooler water up to make power by temp dif.

Not a huge leap forward

[DavidYaw]

The house has solar panels on the roof, which generate electricity that is used to electrolyze water in to Hydrogen, which is then stored, and later used to power the house.

There already exist houses that have solar panels, generate electricity, store it in a bank of batteries, and then use that power later to power the house.

The only thing new here is that that the bank of batteries has been replaced by a hydrogen tank.

Safety

[jwitch]

I don't understand why people are fussing about the safety of using hydrogen. Hydrocarbon gas (ands its byproducts) can be just as dangerous. I seriously doubt that something going comercial like this would have a high risk of danger.

Re:Safety

[noidentity]

"I seriously doubt that something going comercial like this would have a high risk of danger."

As opposed to, say, a high risk of safety?

Re:Safety

[jwitch]

doh! I even previewed my post and did not notice.

Anyway, stop knit picking and stay on topic

This is NOT the first self-sustainable house!!!

[killyourblender]

We had it first! Those bastards are ripping us off! Get the real deal at BioHome.net

Re:This is NOT the first self-sustainable house!!!

[Yokaze]

Puh, another self-sustaining house. No, not in the Sahara, neither in Texas or South California:
Freiburg, Germany, 1992, running with solar power and hydrogen(PDF), (and a picture of it)

Re:This is NOT the first self-sustainable house!!!

[killyourblender]

Those people have nothing on us!!

Check out my site, and you will see that the complete Biohome system is a) self sustaining for ALL cycles and utilities (electricity, water, air, heat, sewage, etc) and b) is inherently encased in a superior architecture that resists fire, earthquakes, all weather, etc. that can be completely sealed from the outside if done properly. Set this baby up right, and you could chip it off the Earth and float it in orbit.
</plug>

Probable reason, storage.

[FreeLinux]

Storage is the most liekly reason. With solar-only electric you need large banks of batteries to store the electricity for later use during dark periods. These batteries take a lot of space, must be replaced periodically and their disposal is not environmentally friendly.

By converting the solar to hydrogen you get an efficient fuel that is easily stored in a smaller space. There is no/less need for replacement of the storage vessel and it is very environmentally friendly, making disposal a mute point.

H2 vs. batteries

[gevmage]

I think the difference between H2 energy storage and chemical batteries is that batteries degrade after many, many cycles. I think the problem is that there are more possible reactions than the primary charge/discharge, and the battery develops memory. The hydrogen production/usage is a single reaction only, so probably will last much longer without having to change out the system.

Re:Not really

[cexshun]

I see. I simply confused the terms self-sustaining and 100% efficient. I normallly use them as interchangeable phrases.

Safety issues and information

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

HERE is a link concerning safety issues and applications for hydrogen when used as a fuel source. The site is by the International Association for Hydrogen Energy. This site may need to be taken with a grain of salt though.

thieves!

[Easy2RememberNick]

Dammit they stole my idea :P

I was going to use windmills though.

Re:thieves!

[c4ll7]

whats important is that this is part of a liberatory revoltion in energy and we all share the discovery its about who puts it into use and brags about it most. ;)

Don't be fooled.

[camrdale]

"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future," said Kamaruzzaman.

Being abundant has nothing to do with being the fuel of the future.

Despite what the fuel cell lobby would like you to believe, Hydrogen is not an energy source, as there is no ample supply of usable hydrogen fuel. As in this case, the Hydrogen has to be produced, which consumes energy. This is done using the most abundant energy source in the universe [and the atmosphere ;)], the SUN!

Solar is the key.

Reality series?

[Wiseazz]

We are still running tests and in the near future plan to have a couple of our students live in the house for a period of time as an experiment.

No, no, no... you need at least 8 or 9 to start with, then you have to eliminate one every few days and... oh, it's been done you say? Carry on.

On a more serious note, I think the guy was pretty realistic about the expectations here (addressing the negative folk). This is an important first step in proving the technology. Don't expect a "conversion kit" anytime in the near future.

But it's not built with sustainable materials

[weiyuent]

The designers should be commended for the power self-sufficiency of the house.

But I notice from the photo that the house has been constructed primarily from steel and concrete, which are hardly sustainable materials. The amount of energy that goes into extracting and processing steel or concrete is thousands of times more than that for wood or masonry. The net energy balance from both the construction and long-term operation of this house is likely to be very negative.

For reference: stats, stats and more stats

Re:But it's not built with sustainable materials

[Anonymous Coward]

No offense, but did you even read the links you provided? The last one specifically details the environmental advantages of concrete-based construction. Hardly supports your position that concrete is "thouands of times" more energy intensive than other alternatives.

Re:But it's not built with sustainable materials

[weiyuent]

The last one specifically details the environmental advantages of concrete-based construction.

Oops, you got me on that one.

Re:But it's not built with sustainable materials

[Zepalesque]

Agreed regarding the steel. Cobb, straw bale, and rammed earth are much more eco-friendly substances to build with.

Re:But it's not built with sustainable materials

[c4ll7]

yes concrete production causes 1/3 of green house gas i understand earthen materials are more ideal for a real sustainable home lime adobe clay bamboo pumice hemp.

Re:But it's not built with sustainable materials

[o'reor]

No offense, but don't you think that a document bragging about the environmental merits of cement and concrete deserves a little suspicion, especially when it is written by the Portland Cement Association ?

A guy belonging to such an association is certainly not going to blurt out that the cement-producing industry releases a huge amount of greenhouse-gases into the atmosphere and wastes a considerable amount of energy in their industrial process.

Hindenburg

[hab136]

See http://engineer.ea.ucla.edu/releases/blimp.htm - hydrogen did NOT cause the Hindenburg to burn, it was the fact that it was painted with rocket fuel, basically.

Re:Not really

[cexshun]

I see. I always thought 100% effecient meant that it required 0 outside interaction to continue the process indefinetly. Perhaps just a twisting of words. Touche

Hydrogen bombs?

[pair-a-noyd]

People are more likely to relate Hydrogen to the Hindenburg.

When you talk about hydrogen powered cars to people that ALWAYS mention the Hindenburg..

sol-terra

[gCGBD]

One of the more advanced energy efficient, solar power homes in the country is under construction in Ohio: http://www.solterra.info

It uses 5 alternative energy sources.

Solar power is great, PV cells are not

[Anonymous Coward]

Photovoltaic cells actually take more energy to produce than they will output over their lifetime. This makes them little more than a large, wasteful battery. The most efficient form of solar energy that we've been able to harness is hydroelectric, but that's not exactly easy to use on a residential scale.

The most promising technology I've seen for residential solar power goes back to our tried-and-true method of electrical generation: Heat water into steam, spin a turbine. Numerous mirrors focus a large amount of light onto a very small area, to boil water and spin a turbine. It's not nearly as "fire and forget" as PV cells, but it's much more environmentally friendly.

Re:Solar power is great, PV cells are not

[WOV]

All right! I *knew* someone would trot out the "solar panels take more energy" schtick! This is great; it's practically the only time I get to get modded up to insightful. Ahem.

They just updated this peer-reviewed survey study: (PDF) from the national laboratories. Short version? Worst case payback is 3.75 years from a system that will last 30 years. (A coal or natural gas combined cycle power plant, by the way, has about the same energy payback - they don't spring fully formed from the soil.)

This is not to denigrate the Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) technologies you spoke of; they're promising central station power. Check DOE's CSP page for more info there. But read up before you dismiss photovoltaics out of hand.

Re:Solar power is great, PV cells are not

[gCGBD]

This is a myth ... American Solar Energy Society FAQ on energy payback.

Re:Solar power is great, PV cells are not

[certsoft]

Photovoltaic cells actually take more energy to produce than they will output over their lifetime. This makes them little more than a large, wasteful battery.

Hard to imagine people are still spreading this dis-information. Modern solar panels start producing more energy than they consumed for their manufacture within 2-4 years depending on where they are installed.

Solar Myths

Re:Solar power is great, PV cells are not

[hacksoncode]

Yes, well, but an important (perhaps overriding) factor is not considered by that study, and it says so itself:

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...

Re:Solar power is great, PV cells are not

[WOV]

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.

Re:Solar power is great, PV cells are not

[hacksoncode]

Here's a quote from Evergreen Solar's financial report:

Product gross margin for the quarter ended December 31, 2003 was -220%, a decrease from -99% for the same period in 2002.

Don't be so sure about the math not working out. Remember: gross margin is (product revenue - manufacturing cost of goods sold) / product revenue. There's only 1 way for that to be negative...

Re:Solar power is great, PV cells are not

[WOV]

Well, except that "Manufacturing cost of goods sold" equals, for Evergreen, installing all of their new dual-ribbon furnaces. For Shell, automating their Camarillo factory. For BP, gutting half the Frederick facility and automating that (and then doing the next line next year.) This is, for instance, why Evergreen would appear to be half as profitable on gross margin for the last year, despite (about) halving their production costs. I feel like we're doing this backwards. I've shown you multiple peer-reviewed documents from industry experts stating that energy payback is less than 4 years; show me something that demonstrates it's more than 25.

Moderation....

[Anonymous Coward]

shouldn't he have been moderated as "Flamebait"?

There's a reason why I posted as AC.

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[David Hume]

I'm sure many /.'ers are aware of this, but the fact that the Hindenburg was filled with Hydrogen had very little to do with the disaster.

I'm not sure this is true. While Hydrogen was not the cause of the disaster -- as in the substance that first caught fire -- it is not clear to me that the fact the Hindenburg was filled with Hydrogen didn't make the disaster much worse. Would the disaster have been as bad had the Hindenburg been filled with Helium? Would it have been consumed by fire so quickly? Is there any chance that more people could have survived?

I honestly don't know, but I think the above are legitimate questions.

hydrogen is a greenhouse gas

[peter303]

Gaseous hydrogen quickly oxides into water vapor, which in turn traps heat energy in the atmosphere. I havent been able to find a comparison of the potency of hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Being the smallest molecule, dihydrogen leaks the most easily from containment systems. Some people have speculated that large amounts of hydrogen could leak and contribute the greenhouse problem.

Re:hydrogen is a greenhouse gas

[avandesande]

Does anyone have some mod point for funny? I can't believe someone actually fell for the old 'dangers of dihydrogen oxide' gag and gave it an insightful mod.

Re:hydrogen is a greenhouse gas

[slickwillie]

Are you referring to this dangerous substance?

Re:hydrogen is a greenhouse gas

[jellisky]

Who modded this as interesting? My gods, a basic understanding of the water cycle debunks this. Water vapor has one of the shortest lifetimes of any stable molecule in the atmosphere. We're talking weeks, at best, here, folks. Yes, water vapor is actually MORE potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to IR radiation trapping, but it's also a little more potent in reflecting solar radiation (ever hear of clouds?). In fact, the water vapor feedback is a problem that has no definite answers. To say that a rise in water vapor concentrations raises global temperatures is using linear theory on a completely nonlinear problem (or, in layman's terms, using a mitre saw to hammer in a nail).

Besides, more water vapor is evaporated into the air every day than we could EVER hope to put out with our energy. Need proof? Recall that a hurricane gains much of its energy from the latent heat release of water vapor as it condenses (which means that it must be evaporated first). Recall that the kinetic energy in a decent hurricane is multiple orders of magnitude above what nuclear bombs put out. We're talking terawatts over the spans of days. And that's for one very small hurricane, not counting all the global budget. A back of the envelope calculation puts the latent heat of all the water vapor in the atmosphere around 10^23 Joules, whereas a 20-kiloton bomb releases about 10^14 Joules. Ancedotal, yes, but true. Drop in the bucket.

With such small quantities and such a short atmospheric lifetime, the climatological impacts of this would be like trying to quantify the impacts of a flu outbreak that's occuring only in your office building on the global economy. Anyone who has suggested this has obviously not done their homework.

-Jellisky

Re:hydrogen is a greenhouse gas

[delibes]

You're a funny man. And di-hydrogen monoxide can be lethal in large doses. However let's do some thinking...

Whilst water does absorb heat nicely, the house actually takes water out of the environment by breaking down water into hydrogen and oxygen. So, if there were lots of these houses, and on average they had some hydrogen on store, then there'd be slightly less water freely available.

Since there's already so many people without clean drinking water, this isn't going to help in those areas. For Malaysia though it's probably great - loads of sun and rain almost every day.

Re:hydrogen is a greenhouse gas

[mopomi]

Give me a break! Where does the hydrogen come from?
Water.

Two main sources of water:

1) Rain water is split into oxygen and hydrogen => any hydrogen that recombines with oxygen becomes water => net LOSS of water from the atmosphere because most of that rain water would have just evaporated back to the atmosphere. All of the hydrogen released will NOT recombine to make water.

2) Ground water is split and hydrogen is released into atmosphere to recombine with oxygen to create water => no more water added to the atmosphere than if we were to use the groundwater for, say, drinking, watering our gardens, or whatever. The ground water is eventually recharged from atmospheric water.

As previously stated, the atmospheric lifetime of any particular water molecule is so short that it doesn't have time to absorb (and reradiate as heat) much solar energy.

Any other source of hydrogen is meaningless and too expensive to make sense as an economic source of hydrogen, by orders of magnitude.

Please, understand the entire problem before spreading this non-knowledge.

Re:hydrogen is a greenhouse gas

[cdn-programmer]

You are 100% correct that the hydrogen gas released into the atmosphere will contribute to global warming. The people who have tried to belittle your comment are just totally uninformed or unable to understand the process or both.

The issues with hydrogen is at what altitude it will recombine. Notwithstanding this, water vapour is a far more powerful absorber than CO2 at all wavelengths and it is about 100 times more abundant.

CO2 levels currently are about 365ppm or 0.0365% while water vapour typically is 2-4%. However some areas are quite arid and may have water vapour levels at 0%.

Irrigation is playing a much bigger role than escaping hydrogen - however hydrogen technology is not widely deployed. If every house in the world were built along these lines - perhaps escaping hydrogen would be a significant factor. It certainly deserves some study.

Now the issue with irrigation is that before the dam was put in - the water flowed in a narrow band confined by two river banks and the only evaporation that took place was from its surface. After irrigation, all the water that previously flowed to the sea was now forced generally into the atmosphere through evaporation of land that otherwise would be arid, or secondly through transpiration from the crops that are irrigated.

If you look at the flow of the rivers around the world that has been diverted you will find this is quite a lot of water.

People use the argument that water is short lived in the atmosphere. While this is true, it is also irrelevant. Humidity in my house is also short lived but this does not change the fact that my humidifier works quite effectively because I can refill it. Similarly, if we look at the irrigation projects - it is clear that the global humidifier created by the crops is also being constantly refilled.

The next area where water vapour is significalty changed in the atmosphere is from the combustion of fossil fuels. Most liquid fuels come from the oxtane series and have a chemical formula of CnH(2n+2). Here we can clearly see we get 2x as much water vapour as CO2 on a molecular basis. With coals we are actually putting in more CO2 than Water vapour - but most of our fuels are not coals.

Natural Gas is CH4 so we put in 4x as much water vapour from Natural Gas.

Again, the issue is not how long lived the water vapour is, the issue is that we are constantly adding it. Thus all the activities we humans do actually pushes water vapour into the atmosphere on a more or less steady basis. Even breathing does this!

Some studies have suggested that each human in North America adds 64KG CO2 per day. If this is true, then each human add more than 2x this in the form of water vapour forced into the atmosphere.

Since water vapour is a strong absorber in all wavelengths one would expect the lower atmosphere to warm slightly and the upper atmosphere to cool. There is data to support this.

If you check the IPCC report in chapter 7 you will find that they simply decided to ignore the role of water vapour in their models. Given that the concentration of water vapour is at least 2 orders of magnitude more significant than CO2, this IMHO is a silly thing to do. You simply cannot ignore the most significant variable and expect your model to be meaningful.

So perhaps we do have some climate change taking place. The jury is still out on this matter mind you. I kinda think our climate is warming - but how much is an open question.

Over the last 570 million years, for over 90% of this time the planet was about 20 degrees warmer than now. So the dinosaurs really did live in a hot steamy jungle. In fact, even 5 million years ago there were trees north of the artic circle which is clear because we sometimes find wood in the kimberlites in some of Canada's wanna be diamond mines.

This wood has been dated at about 5 million years and it is still wood. So 5 million years ago it was quite a bit warmer than it is now.

Re:hydrogen is a greenhouse gas

[mopomi]

The point isn't that water vapor is a green house gas. The point is that our conversion of water to hydrogen and oxygen and then releasing some of that hydrogen as gas (and converting some back to water) is NOT going to increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. The easiest way to get hydrogen is to take it from water. The easiest way to get water is to take it out of the hydrologic cycle. Our use of the hydrogen gas derived from water will decrease the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

Since water vapour is a strong absorber in all wavelengths one would expect the lower atmosphere to warm slightly and the upper atmosphere to cool. There is data to support this.

Water is not a strong absorber at all wavelengths. Take a look

Water is, for all intents, *transparent* in the visible wavelengths both as a gas and as a liquid. It's a good thing too, because the "visible" light (the light that goes through all that water vapor in the atmosphere and reaches the surface) happens to be the light that we humans evolved to see with. It also "just so happens" that the sun (as a near-black body emitter at about 5000 K) emits most of its energy at the visible wavelengths (coincidence?). . .

So, water vapor is not absorbing most of the energy that comes from the sun (even if it is a strong absorber at most infrared and UV wavelengths); it is, in fact, transparent to most of that energy until it condenses into clouds, which makes it reflect a lot of the visible wavelengths.

If you check the IPCC report in chapter 7 you will find that they simply decided to ignore the role of water vapour in their models. Given that the concentration of water vapour is at least 2 orders of magnitude more significant than CO2, this IMHO is a silly thing to do. You simply cannot ignore the most significant variable and expect your model to be meaningful.

First of all, they don't actually ignore water. The tend not to trust atmospheric models that have globally averaged water vapor. The surface water (oceans, lakes, rivers, etc.) are important energy transport mechanisms that are much better understood than the greenhouse gas, water vapor. Read chapter 8 of the IPCC. . .

You also simply cannot ignore the fact that concentration is not the only variable when it comes to global warming. How efficeint is water vapor at absorbing in the visible and UV and re-emitting in the infrared? how does its non-even spatial distribution affect its efficeincy as a greenhouse gas? Compare that with CO2 and, say SF6, whose lifetimes in the atmosphere are much, much greater than water.

Go back and read the IPCC again. . . The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is on the order of 50-200 years. The atmospheric lifetime of H2O is much shorter than that of CO2 (nobody is really sure by how much shorter). However, the biggest thing about water vapor is that as the concentration in the atmosphere increases, it does trap more energy from the sun, but it also increases the likelyhood that the vapor will condense to form clouds, thus increasing the "albedo" of the atmosphere, lowering the amount of energy that stays on the earth. It's difficult to model and thus is usually ignored when other gases like CO2 (which only *increase* the amount of heat retained) are increasing in concentration.

Another problem with water vapor is that it isn't evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere, either "horizontally", vertically, or temporally, mostly because its atmospheric lifetime is so short. CO2 and other strong, long lived gases are much more evenly distributed, so it's relatively simple to create a mathematical model of the effects CO2 et al. have on the energy budget of the Earth. It's not so simple with a patchy gas like water vapor.

The jury is NOT out on the matter of the increase of the average temperature of the earth. It IS increasing. The jury is ou

Re:hydrogen is a greenhouse gas

[cdn-programmer]

You still have not caught the errors of your thinking. The lifetime of the molecule is not important. The fact is that new molecules are constantly being introduced. This is like the humidifier in your house and it is perfectly clear that your argument (and the IPCC's as well) that since the lifetime of the molecule in the atmosphere is short, it can be ignored is totally falicious!

The humidifier in your house clearly works! This is inspite of the fact you have to contantly refill it.

We are constantly irrigating vast stretches of land that would otherwise be arid. This causes more energy to be retained in the atmosphere.

Re:hydrogen is a greenhouse gas

[mopomi]

Extrapolating from a humidifier in an 30 cubic meter room to the entire Earth's atmosphere, which is about 4.6x10^18 cubic meters* (if you assume the majority of the atmosphere is contained within one scale height (9km) of the atmosphere**) is meaningless. Not only does the physics change because of confining walls and the shape of the room, there are other mechanisms at work in the atmosphere that simply do not happen in a small room with a humidifier. The time scale for warming and increasing the "atmospheric" water content in a small, enclosed room is effectively 0 when compared with that for the atmosphere.

There is no error in thinking that the time a certain molecule stays in the atmosphere matters. If that molecule doesn't stay in the atmosphere long enough to, relatively, affect the energy balance, then it is not as important as other molecules that live in the atmosphere longer***. If the type of molecule is not evenly distributed (spatially), then its global effect is NOT EASILY MODELED, especially if it's also a short-lived molecule.

The IPCC did not ignore surface water and its affect on global warming. They didn't use the models that made a poor job of accounting for the atmospheric water and its affect on global warming (positive and negative).

A bad and poorly understood model is sometimes worse than no model at all! This is especially true if you state, UP FRONT that you have not modeled something because of the poor constraints and incomplete understanding of its affect on the otherwise more simple model. If you CAN make approximations for how much said parameter will affect thing on an order of magnitude (or two or three) scale, then you can state, to "good" approximation what the affect will probably be. The IPCC understood this and said so in their write-up.

Yes, human activity with respect to the global water cycle does affect the atmospheric heat forcing. Consider, though, that the oceans make up more than 97% by volume of the water budget, the atmosphere makes up 1/1000 of a percent, streams and rivers (what humans modify) make up 1/10000 of a percent, lakes (also what humans modify) make up 1/10 of a percent, and ground water makes up 68/100 of a percent. So, yeah, if we were to completely vaporize the lakes and ground water, we'd completely destroy the Earth's climate.

*For the mathematically challanged w.r.t. volumes:

radius of Earth=6378 km
radius of Earth+atmosphere = 6387 (km)
volume of Earth = 4/3 * Pi * 6378^3 (km^3)
volume of Earth+atm = 4/3 * Pi *6387^3 (km^3)
volume of atm = V(earth+atm)-V(earth)
volume of atm in m^3 = 10^9*volume of atm in km^3

** The scale height is the distance it takes for the atmospheric pressure to fall by a factor of e.

*** Assume, if you will, that the lifetime of water in the atmosphere is, say, a week (I found one reference to it:in this PDF). Now, assume 1 gram of water is "stuck" together through-out its atmospheric lifetime (clearly incorrect, but just for the sake of simple calculations). Now, let's start this gram of water at the tropopause, 9 or 10 km above the surface of the earth. It's about -80 C or so there. Let the gram fall through the atmosphere non-adiabatically (so that it can gain some heat) all the way to the surface at 25 C. This is a net change of 105 degrees C. So, the gram of water has absorbed 439 J to increase its temperature. Also assume, unrealisticly--but for kicks, that this gram of water went from the liquid phase to a gaseous phase (so that we can over estimate the amount of energy absorbed). It would absorb 2000 J. Assume all of that energy is absorbed sunlight that would otherwise have reflected off the surface of the earth and back in to space. Also assume all of that energy is later released as the gram of water reverses its path and returns back to the tropopause and that this energy directly heats the atmosphere. This me

1 storage but maybe something else as well

[SmallFurryCreature]

Hydrogen has a lot more oomph then a low current. That low current can produce a lot of hydrogen slowly but probably isn't enough to heat up a cooking plate in a few seconds. Certainly nowhere as fast as cooking on hydrogen :)

What I am really wondering about is if this could also be used to refuel your hydrogen powered car. FREE fuel! Now that would make the investment easily pay off.

Re:Why Solar - Hydrogen?

[slickwillie]

Does anyone know if you can run a fuel cell backwards, i.e. put in water and electricity and get out hydrogen and oxygen? If so, is that any more or less efficient than simple electrolysis, which in this case I assume is just immersing two electrodes in the water?

Wanna buy this solar powered flashlight real cheap?

Re:Solar Hydrogen

[Paulrothrock]

The solar power makes the hydrogen that the house runs on. And to think that they haven't thought out problems like explosions or cloudy days is idiotic. I'd love to live in one of these houses and never pay anyone for fuel or electricity again.

Re:I bet this guy is a blast at parties

[dutky]

karmaflux muttered from a veil of ignorance:

"...inspiration from traditional Malay architecture, which he says possesses a bio-climatic environment and is in harmony with nature."

I tell ya, nothing impresses the ladies like a good bio-climatic environment.

Oh wait, that's just more pretentious crap from eco-freaks. NEXT

Actually, there is quite a science to tropical architechture, or there was before the invention of air-conditioning. I have an uncle who was trained as an architect in Vietnam and he learned all this stuff about how to design buildings to be self-cooling. Now, living in the U.S. where every building of any size has its own air-conditioner, his skills are completely outdated.

I'm not really trying to defend the term "bio-climatic" but there is something to be said for climate-appropriate architecture. It's not even a matter of being an "eco-freak": if you need to get by in a climate that has 100% humiditity and 110 degree temeratures in the shade, you need to put some real thought and effort into your architecture. Folks in tropical climates have understood this for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

Not to mention...

[thentil]

...that in many places it probably isn't the best use of that purified water.

Hydrogen is a storage medium

[verloren]

One of the attractions of Hydrogen is its storage potential, as that allows us to make full use of 'alternative' energy sources such as solar, wind etc. Whether it's in a garage that needs less frequent tanker visits because of the solar cells on it roof, or in a car that refuels itself and runs the air conditioning while parked on a hot day, or in a house like the one mentioned, hydrogen's best feature is not its cleanliness, but its ability to smooth the link between supply and demand that allows us to use these cleaner alternatives.

On a larger scale industrial installations would allow us to do the same thing, so that we could have fewer power stations running at 100% day and night, rather than having inefficient spinning reserve. And of course we could get by with less still if we all had a power station in the basement. There are alternatives such as using superconducting magnets, or compressed air, but the ubiquity and relative safety of hydrogen makes it a real enabler of such change. Assuming the political/economic will is there of course.

Hydrogen is (nearly) the Perfect Fuel

[Esion Modnar]

It's only by-product is water. Gotta like that.

So where do you get it? Fossil fuels? Kinda defeats the purpose, dontcha think?

I suppose the clean green answer is solar power, generate electricity, and hydrolysize water with it. But this takes ACREAGE.

The next step would be to orbit some solar collectors on a massive scale, hundreds of square miles, and beam the power down to receivers planetside, but we're probably years from that.

Still, we have to think about where is the ultimate source of all our energy. Just look up at noon.

Re:Hydrogen is (nearly) the Perfect Fuel

[tunesmith]

deserts wouldn't work because of the water requirement. but there's lots of acreage in the ocean.

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[Beer_Smurf]

Actually, the hydrogen did not burn until it had escaped and mixed with air.
At this point it did little to effect the actual incident.
It would not have made any differance what was inside the gas bags.

most things start too damned expensive

[Damek]

Going to space is still too damned expensive. But it's cheaper than it was once upon a time. No harm in pushing onward, ever onward...

Ouch. Watch for falling hydrogen

[dr_canak]

"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."

I hate getting hit from hydrogen running off of solar panels.

Oh wait, I get it:

"To generate hydrogen, the house has an electrolyser that runs off of solar panels. The hydrogen is used for heat and electricity in the house."

Shortsighted solution

[scottennis]

Sure Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, but it will eventually run out.

For a real long-term solution, I propose an energy model built on porn, spam, political promises, and Slashdot karma!

Re:Shortsighted solution

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

For a real long-term solution, I propose an energy model built on porn, spam, political promises, and Slashdot karma!

Porn power might work for a short time. It's a well known fact that any system running on porn power requires more and more porn over time.

Spam energy would be hard to control. As soon as you get a little of it, it keeps increasing until the system vaporizes in flash of penis enlargement pills and cheap medication.

Political promises contain zero energy. This easely to prove. The day after the election they disappear without a trace. So if they would have contained any energy, this would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Cheaper to do with a battery array

[naoiseo]

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?

Re:Cheaper to do with a battery array

[WOV]

Can do, but in large part, it depends where you live - contact info@seia.org for a run-through.

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[WinterSolstice]

Right.

Now, let's do a simulation where it was filled with O2 :)
That would be one heck of a fire!

-WS

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[Short Circuit]

Well, from what I understand, the main reason people died was that they jumped from the gondola while the Hindenberg was still too high. Those who jumped when it was a lot lower mostly escaped with burns.

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[Short Circuit]

My gut feeling is that the difference would have been minimal to having Helium vs Hydrogen as far as that accident. (assuming the design changes needed for Helium would not have worsened the situation.)

That's an interesting point. Using Helium would have required a much larger surface area, which would have required much more paint. So there'd have been more of that stuff to burn.

"...looks like any house"???

[Atario]

From the article:

AT FIRST glance, the quaint little house outside the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia engineering faculty looks like any house. But there is more to it than meets the eye.

Hm...checking out that photo, if that's what "any house" in Malaysia looks like, I'd say they're a bit more advanced than I thought.

NEW JERSEY will pay 70% of your PV installation

[nxs212]

Check out New Jersey's renewable energy program - http://www.njcleanenergy.com
State will GIVE you back 70% of what you spend on all hardware and labor.

What's even more exciting, is the venture capital fund that will give your business 5 to 500k recoverable grant to expand your renewable energy business development. This money could help you buy installation equipment, trucks, warehouse space, help hire additional staff,etc. Unfortunately, this fund is only 5 million is size. If a lot of companies apply, there won't be enough for everyone.
I think any experienced roofer would be crazy not to at least consider doing solar installations. I mean if they are already ripping an entire roof and replacing shingles, why not offer to install some solar panels or tile south side of the roof with solar shingles?

whoa there

[be951]

What I am really wondering about is if this could also be used to refuel your hydrogen powered car. FREE fuel! Now that would make the investment easily pay off.

One of the problems with developing hydrogen fueled vehicles is storing the hydrogen. Having an enormous tank in your yard is one thing, towing it around behind your car is another. Of course, you can just compress it more, but then you add some risk by having a tank that still may be fairly large under extremely high pressure. This is of most concern when something collides with your vehicle, or vice versa. There are a number of ways to work around this, including just using the hydrogen from more complex hydrocarbons (i.e. petroleum products) in a fuel cell. Lots of people are working on hydrogen fueled cars. So far, I don't think anyone has put all the pieces together.

Oh and the cost.... well, the fuel may be free but you'll pay a lot up front (solar cells, water purification, fuel cell for the house, storage and/or fuel cell for the car). Do a cost benefit analysis before you sign...

What about a hydrogen power plant?

[mi]

If this such a good way to produce/store electricity, why aren't power companies using it?

No, they are not sold out to oil -- most of the electricity comes from burning coal...

Is it only because hydrogen can also be used directly (for cooking and heating)?

Re:Wonderful but I hope the architect isn't stupid

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Natural gas is flammable too, that's the whole point of fuel. There isn't that much difference between using natural gas and hydrogen gas (except the hydrogen molecules are smaller and therefore need other materials to make the pipes and tanks gas tight, but this hardly new. Hydrogen has been used for decades in the industry).

Such a tank isn't very likely to blow up (unless you live in a Hollywood movie). Except when you happen to live in forest that decides to start burning big time. If the fire heats the tank, you can imagine what happens, assuming you're familiar with the ideal gas law pV=nRT, the volume V of the tank and the amount of gas n inside remains the same (And so does the constant R), The temperature T rises, So the pressure p doesn't have much choice than to rise as well.
p will rise until the tank bursts and some of the gas combusts.
If the same tank was filled with natural gas, the same thing would have happened. Even if it was filled with helium it would have burst (but it wouldn't have burned ofcourse).

oh and IANYAE (I'm not yet an engineer)

skip the electric for now

[raygundan]

And go ahead and buy one of those shiny new priuses. The 2004 model is bigger (about as big as a 2004 Accord), faster, more efficient, and has the added trunk space of a hatchback.

Plus, the navigation system responds to voice commands like "I'm Hungry" and plots a course to the nearest restaurant.

It's dorky (see the engine preheat coolant thermos that reduces startup emissions, for example), it gets 60mpg, and makes squeaky-clean emissions. It should hold you over until toyota can come up with a car that runs the exhaust from other people's cars.

Re:skip the electric for now

[ffallen]

Ok. Where are you at? Possibly you and I can get together somewhere at a stoplight and see if your 04 Prius is faster than 04 Accord EX. Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were serious.

Re:skip the electric for now

[Guy Harris]

Possibly you and I can get together somewhere at a stoplight and see if your 04 Prius is faster than 04 Accord EX.

You might have misread what the original poster was probably saying.

He said:

And go ahead and buy one of those shiny new priuses. The 2004 model is bigger (about as big as a 2004 Accord), faster, more efficient, and has the added trunk space of a hatchback.

The only mention of an 04 Accord is when discussing the size; "bigger", "faster", and "more efficient" probably refer to an '04 Prius compared with the previous version of the Prius - according to this review, relative to the original Prius the '04 is 6.9 inches longer in wheelbase, 6.3 inches longer overall, and taller and wider (and heavier) as well, has a bit more horsepower (and I've seen claims that it's faster 0-60mph), and has higher EPA fuel economy.

The V6 EX does accelerate much faster - according to an edmunds.com comparison site, it's 7.5s 0-60mph vs. 10.37 for the Prius. The site doesn't give the acceleration for the 4-cylinder EX. The interior sizes are a mixed bag - the Prius wins on front and rear headroom, rear leg room, and luggage capacity, and the Accord wins on front and rear shoulder and hip room and front leg room. (The Prius, not surprisingly, wins on fuel economy.)

I have been saying this sort of thing for years...

[dnamaners]

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.

Okay for Malasia.

[Jaywalk]

Those of us who don't live so close to the equator would get more benefit from cheaper systems that convert solar energy into heat rather than to electricity. Converting from photovoltaic energy to electricity to heat will lose a lot of energy unnecessarily. And areas with heavier cloud cover won't capture as much solar power anyway, causing further problems with the economics of the system.

Still, using hydrogen tanks as a storage medium for unused electricity is a nice touch.

Re:Okay for Malasia.

[Zepalesque]

This can be accomplished, in part, by passive solar heating.

Basically, the home's foundation is a big concrete slab that gets heated by sunlight cast through southern-facing windows. In theory this can keep a house from dropping below 50 degrees in the winter.

Supplement with a wood burning stove and the home can be affordably heated independent of local utilities.

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[dbrower]

Would the disaster have been as bad had the Hindenburg been filled with Helium? Would it have been consumed by fire so quickly? Is there any chance that more people could have survived?

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

Propane isn't that dangerous if treated properly..

[stvangel]

It's easy to store and transport as a liquid. Good energy density too. Hydrogen is far harder and more dangerous to store and transport. The biggest problem is you have with Hydrogen is it has to be stored at very high pressure and/or low temperature to store as a liquid, or else converted to a more complex molecule such as methanol or alcohol. Propane is cheap, easy to mess with, and you can buy cheap tanks right off the shelf. Just look at all the propane grills, refrigerators and generators you can buy out there. Most could be built with Hydrogen, but they just wouldn't be practical.

Liquid Propane is lighter than water and propane vapor is heavier than air, so it will tend to seek low spots if it leaks. One gallon of liquid will evaporate to 270 cubic feet of propane vapor.

Propane will only burn if it's mixed with air at a 2.2% to 9.6% concentration. A high concentration will actually put a fire out. I proved that one day to some students of mine ( I'm a commercial hot-air balloon pilot ).

You have to respect propane, but it's actually quite safe to have around, all things considered.

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[SnappleMaster]

The fire went on for something like 20 minutes and burned very hot. A bag full of hydrogen simply CANNOT sit on the ground and burn for 20 minutes unless the fuel is something other than hydrogen.

Re:Solar Hydrogen

[Smidge204]

"On the other hand, if the PV panels do not generate enough electricity to power the electrolysis system, power will be drawn from the grid."

As for explosions... well, the article doesn't give specifics about the construction of the storage system.

Of course, relying on the grid at all kinda shoots the whole idea down. If the house doesn't have enough capacity to make it through one or two cloudy days then that pretty much rules out some 80% of the planet where this concept would be worth investing in.
=Smidge=

Five Computers quote

[sartin]

In fact, Babbage once said there was only a market for five computers in the world.

Wikipedia says it was Thomas J. Watson who said that in 1943. This was shortly before Thomas J. Watson Jr. came home from WWII and began promoting computers heavily within IBM. Other web source seem to agree. IBM doesn't seem to endorse it in official material though there is a presentation sitting on one of their sites that mentions it.

Whether or not it's true, the lesson of the quote is that even (especially?) people on the brink of a tipping point may not recognize the huge impact of the disruptive technology they are working with. Works the other way, too. Often those promoting some cool, geeky technology assume everyone will want one, when in fact they don't; at least not yet. Look at the many early attempts at "portable" computers or the many attempts at handheld devices and runs at tablet-style PCs. Ultimately, some of those technologies caught on (and tablets still look like they might) but at a much slower rate than anticipated.

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[Carnildo]

Hydrogen burns with a light-blue, almost transparent flame, and no smoke. The flames on the Hindenburg were red and orange, and produced enormous billowing clouds of smoke. Doesn't sound like a hydrogen fire to me.

seriously can't wait for such things to be common

[MikeCapone]

Add to that a geothermic pump and an hybrid car and that's what I call a real feel-good lifestyle!

Explosive range is the problem with Hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

Explosive range is what makes hydrogen more unsafe than gasoline. Explosive range is the percentage concentration of flammable vapors in the air. Gasoline will only burn in a very narrow range, above which the mixture is too lean to burn and below which the mixture is too rich to burn.

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.

Re:Explosive range is the problem with Hydrogen

[Anonymous Coward]

How is that any different than natural gas or propane? Really?

Natural gas has quite a explosive range, and occasionally we see a house go up, or a big pipeline burn. We sometimes see an entire town ripped apart; rare, but it's happened. At least natural gas is lighter than air, so it will not tend to pool in low areas. Hydrogen is even better--it goes straight up, and in a hurry.

Face it, any fuel improperly used is going to result in catastrophic disaster.

The real question is: "Will Hydrogen result in a noticibly larger percentage of disasters?" My answer is: "I don't think so". My answer would seem to concur with most expert's. Of course, it's something to be respected--just like any other high potential energy source. For god's sake, I've seen people killed by standard automotive tires, rocks on a hill, and other totally mundane stuff that we aren't freakin' paranoid about.

Besides.. How many homes are run on gasoline?

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[MrChuck]

Had it been filled with the much more stable (see above) nitrogen, nobody would have been injured from falls or from the burning.

Of course, they would have still been in .de at the take-off point sitting on the ground... But they'd be safe!

It should be noted.....

[ziggy_zero]

....that the natural air-conditioning method described in the article was discovered in the 1930's by R. Buckminster Fuller, during the development of his Dymaxion House.

Re:It should be noted.....

[ziggy_zero]

Also, Bucky's method probably worked better than this one, as his Dymaxion Houses were cylindrical and not boxy like that house.

Re:It should be noted.....

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[westlake]

Yet it was effectively the death blow for commercial airships

It was also the last in a string of well-publicized disasters including the loss of the Shenandoah. There are larger questions about whether the materials used were up to the demands of the big airships, a lot of them broke up in rough weather.

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[Arjuna]

In fact only a year or so previous to the Hindenberg disaster, a similar event took place in California though fewer lives were lost. That blimp was full of helium and it still went up in a great ball of flames - because like the Hindenberg it was coated with cellulose acetate (I think to keep water off it). Not sure if it had the aluminium paint as well though.

So yeah, I think the gas used for bouyancy makes little difference to the hazard.

Now if we could produce some kinda field that stabilises positive muons by an order of, say, many trillions, we could have muonium lofted blimps that make do with 10% the volume. But. Alas...

To everyone who doesn't understand why hydrogen

[Hepkat]

I just skimmed thru the responses and most people seem to think it's silly to store the energy as hydrogen and they should be using batteries.
Lots of talk about losing energy in the conversion process from sunlight to electricity to hydrogen back to elecricity...

Batteries are chemical reactors just as are fuel cells and therefore have the exact same stages, you just don't see two separate pieces(reactants and reactors) When you store energy in batteries you're forcing a chemical reaction which is very similar ot electrolysis of water. Fuel cells have the advantage of being clean and, because they are not intrisically linked with their fuel source, replenishable. Batteries are mostly toxic and wear out.

Catalytic Photolysis?

[rcw-home]

Catalytic Photolysis, however, can get 40-60% efficiency, and directly produces hydrogen from water + sun

I've never heard of this before. Searching doesn't turn up much. Can you post a few links, for both the theory of operation and for manufacturers of these systems?

Re:Catalytic Photolysis?

[artson]

I've never heard of this before. Searching doesn't turn up much. Can you post a few links, for both the theory of operation and for manufacturers of these systems?

Just google for photolysis of water and you'll obtain a few hundred citations on the subject.

Re:Catalytic Photolysis?

[rcw-home]

Just google for photolysis of water and you'll obtain a few hundred citations on the subject.

The vast majority of which concern photolysis of various things in water, not photolysis of water. Most of the rest describe how chlorophyll works in plants.

The few exceptions I was able to find were useless. One was a powerpoint presentation with no specific information. One was a PDF from 1978 that I'd have to buy to read.

This is why I asked for someone to dig up a link.

C'mon guys. 40-60% efficiency for sunlight to STORED energy is the frickin' holy grail. It's half an order of magnitude better than we can do with photovoltaics. Every geek in America would want to be the first guy on their block to own such a system, and I for one would be telling the whole town about it Paul Revere style. And nobody has the time to find (or perhaps write) a good web page about it.

So where can I get a water photolysis system that yields more energy out than a $15-20k photovoltaic system? Does this exist outside of research labs and plant leaves?

Coal miners die doing their jobs. Change the world already. Post a frickin' link.

Re:Catalytic Photolysis?

[pla]

This is why I asked for someone to dig up a link.

Unfortunately, you probably won't find a link - I've never seen more than passing references to catalytic photolysis outside research journals.


So where can I get a water photolysis system that yields more energy out than a $15-20k photovoltaic system? Does this exist outside of research labs and plant leaves?

Again, you can't. Despite readily-reproduceable results, I know of no commercial systems that work by this method. I agree, holy grail indeed! Sure, the catalysts don't come cheap, but compared to $20k+ for PV?

I apologize for the scarcity of info on this topic... Believe me, I wish I could tell you more, but I have only recently come across this concept myself, and it looks truly staggering in the implications. It also looks like one of those areas of research that people keep very quiet about, either in the hopes of someday marketing it, or for fear of incurring the wrath of our oil-baron leaders.

Re:Catalytic Photolysis?

[artson]

Or you could always go find a link yourself. Then you could thank yourself for the effort.

Re:Catalytic Photolysis?

[rcw-home]

The irony of you barely reading my post and then accusing me of not putting in the effort is truly touching.

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[dbrower]

Lots of planes were going down in bad weather too. It is true there were concerns about bad designs (shenandoah, R1), but planes learned to avoid those with weather prediction.

I'm not saying airships could have survived for long-- the speed arguments along would probably have doomed them, if not the capital cost compared to a metal monoplane. I'm suggesting the PR implications may have been out of proportion to the risks, and facts about duralumin/hydrogen/helium/dope may not have had much to do with it.

-dB

Photovoltaics are also not sustainable

[EmbeddedJanitor]

It takes a shitload of energy to make PV. First you need to mealt sand to make the silicon, then dope it (baking it in a furnace for hours)... This uses a lot of energy. The energy payback time for most PV processes is many years (this also keeps the $/W high). Hopefully though some of the lower cost processes will come to fruition some time. Who cares if they are low efficiency - I'd just tile my whole house with the stuff, so long as the $/W is right.

What about Earthships ?

[Jesrad]

Sombeody should tell this architect about earthships. They are durable and self-sustainable houses, they don't need to be connected to the community's power grid, water distribution or waste evacuation systems, by using solar power and by recycling water (and capturing rain water and condensation).

Re:I have been saying this sort of thing for years

[coyote_oww]

Hydrogen is not really zero emission either. Virtually all hydrogen burning schemes involve using atmospheric oxegen. Unfortunately, this is mixed in with nitrogen. When you mix oxegen and nitrogen at high tempertures, you get NO - the imfamous NOX measured by the EPA.

NOX is nasty because you get it as long as you're buring using plain old air. :-(

I _think_ fuel cells may solve this, but there is nothing like that immediately available.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Wonderful but I hope the architect isn't stupid

[coyote_oww]

When I was in the California Department of Forestry (and Fire Protection!) we had to watch films of Boiling Liquid Exanding Vapor Explosions. (BLEVE, pronounced blev-ee)

The science behind the firefighting is interesting. You're goal (should you choose not to simply back away and watch the fireworks) is to keep the pressure in the tank down and eliminate hotspots on the tank. The theory here is that you're ok as long as you've got liquid in the tank - the liquid keeps hot spots from forming on the tank by redistributing/equalizing the temperture thoughout the tank area exposed to the liquid.

Pressure is limited because the tank has a pressure relief valve on top. Well, hopefully it's still on top - in train wreck sitations, this isn't guarenteed and is a real problem. The pressure relief value will have gas/fuel streaming from it. This is "ok" - it can't ignite till the fuel-air mix is right, which is a bit away from the tank (assuming we're upright still...) In this case, you'll have a flare buring off the top of the tank, and the tank gradually emptying. If you can get the temperature down enough (and eliminate other fires) you can walk right up and turn off the relief valve, cool down the tank, and go home. Or so we were told.

But an emptying tank exposed to flame is a problem! As the tank empties, there is less and less liquid inside (duh!) which means - less even distribution of heat. A "hot spot" can form above the liquid level. The nature of metal is to lose structural strength as it's heated, so this hot spot, combined with the high temperature/pressure of the tank, can lead to a tear in the tank. At that point, gas/fuel streams out, O2 streams in, and chemistry takes over.

In those household propane tanks (we were told) this usually results in a tear at the weld on one end of the tank. The big section of the tank takes off like a rocket, the end cap is blown the other direction.

Google "Kingman" and "BLEVE" for more info. Kingman was the biggie that got the Feds looking into changing LPG storage rules.

Why not heat the water directly...

[Goonie]

Using photovoltaics to generate electricity, then generate hydrogen, and burn the hydrogen to heat water sounds like a lot of inefficiency when you could use something like this.

The two most abundant elements in the universe...

[karlandtanya]

are Hydrogen and Stupidity.

(the most abundant element in Earth's atmosphere is Nitrogen)

77% N2 (molecular nitrogen)

21% O2 (molecular oxygen)

1% H2O (Water Vapor)

0.93% Argon

CO2 (0.035%)

Traces of CH4 (methane), Inert Gases (Ne, He, Kr, Xe)

Particulates (silicate dust, sea salt, sulfates, etc.)

Slight inefficiency

[Jeremi]

It then electrolyses purified water supplied by a water purification system, producing hydrogen and oxygen which are then vented into the atmosphere.

I think I see a little problem here in step 2...

The operative word being "NASA".

[Moderation abuser]

That pretty much answers the question of why it's too expensive.

Efficient Ways to Produce Hydrogen

[mosb1000]

It's kind of ironic, but right now the cheapest, and most energy efficient way to produce hydrogen is to make if from natural gas. There are other chemical ways as well as high temperature electrolosis being considered, (these might able to someday achieve 40% energy conversion). The easiest way is to jsut use cold electrolosis, but that's only about 20% efficient, so it costs more when you produce large quantities. Also, it requires sulfuric acid, which will eventually need to be replineshed (unless you reuse the water the fuel cells produce).

Sustainable Materials

[mosb1000]

"the house has been constructed primarily from steel and concrete, which are hardly sustainable materials" That's an intresting way of looking at it, considering that those building materials last practically forever, where as wood most certinally does not. Would you propose that we build all of our houses out of paper and replace tehm every couple of years?

Why do you think that it requires more energy to make concrete than to make masonry? They're essentially the same thing (except that a few chemicals go into concrete), and masonry has to be fired in a furnace, so that probably makes up any energy differece there. As far as steel goes, yes it does take a lot of energy to produce it, but it lasts a LONG time, a lot longer than wood and masonry.

I hardly think it's fair to say that a house made of steel and concrete can't be eco-firendly. Personally, I'd rather see people start designing and using perminant structures and stop using wood alltogether.

P.S. I have some major problems with that first article you linked. It pretends to be all green and shit, but then it basically says that we sould use our forrests as though they were a gigantic tree farm. Am I the only environmentalists who thinks our natural forrests sould remain natural? Second of all right after it says steel and aluminum cost a lot to recycle, it says we'll run out of aluminum in 200 years, hello? aluminum and steel completly and endlessly recyclable, we'll never run out of them. Finally, I really object to them saying that wood siding is better than aluminum recycling. Basically aluminum siding lasts forever, wood siding starts looking really shitty and needs to be replavced every decade or so. And when you do, you can't recycle it because of all the paint and oil put into it over the years. Which is really better for thin environment? This site is jsut a bunch of loggers trying to tell you that they're going to turn the natural forrests into a farm, and it'll be good for the environment. A good clue that this is propaganda is that they list the R-values of metals to tell you that they're not energy efficient (metals are structural, you'd never use them for insulation).

Re:Sustainable Materials

[armb]

> That's an intresting way of looking at it, considering that those building materials last practically forever, where as wood most certinally does not.

I've lived in a 400 year old timber framed house. That might not be "practically forever", but it's longer than any steel building has lasted so far :-)
(Concrete goes back to the Romans though.)

Compressed air

[Moderation abuser]

Sounds bizarre, but simply compressing air is more efficient than electrolysing water to H2 and then oxidising it back to water in a fuel cell.

It's already being used on an industrial scale in a couple of places:

http://www.aip.org/isns/reports/2001/025.html

You can think of the air as a big spring which won't wear out. The issue with it is energy density, but then that depends on the pressure you compress it to.

The French air car project uses around 200 atmospheres at the moment with proposed 300 if it reaches production. They used to have compressed air trams running about their cities.

The Problem with Hydrogen...

[Doverite]

...is that storing it long term is problematic. Because it is the smallest atom and H2 is the smallest molecule. No matter how tightly sealed the tank over time the hydrogen is going to leak out directly through the material of the tank. Short term and verses the normal discharge of batteries though it could be more efficient.

Hardly the first of its kind

[quax]

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.

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[westlake]

The might-have-beens still interest me.
Moffett's idea was to use airships as early warning platforms in the Pacific. Range and endurance were the Zepp's great advantage and I believe their speed was about the same as PanAm's Clippers, the flying boats. But all Moffett had to work with were featherweight spotter planes that could use an airship as a carrier, no radar.

But how efficient elsewhere?

[tomzyk]

Yeah, this house runs fine-and-dandy in Malaysia, but what about other places where it's not so warm and sunny throughout the entire year?

I'm still holding out on someone to design a house that runs on cloudy skies and miserable winters. And maybe off of all the rock salt that can be scraped off of the bottom of my car too.

Sincerely,
Cleveland

Why not a Kite?

[AmericanInKiev]

Given that kites have been a part of our harnessing of power going back a few milenii Why don't we see kites used to power our homes.

They are inexpensive.

Unlike solar cells which do not generate more power in their lifetime than it takes to produce them - kites could actually net energy.

The kite should be made with adjustable pitch, and should be oscillated in an out with the lift used to pull and spin a flywheel attached to a generator.

serious kites in high winds could harness many megawatts of free energy - at much lower cost and higher energy per hectare rates than windmills. - But I want to know why it won't work.

AIK

Re:Why not a Kite?

[blitziod]

1. you have to run RAELLY fast to get them started 2. they are not safe to fly around power lines, thus can not be used in electrical systems 3. Kite eating Trees

Re:Why not a Kite?

[AmericanInKiev]

We're building airplanes that fly themselves now - why not kites?

When considered kites are usually envisioned on isolated coasts, boats, in short in a clear space.

But I see their earliest potential in developing countries where they do not compete with coal or wires.

AIK

Overreaction on slashdot? Never!

[raygundan]

The only time I mentioned the Accord was in a parenthetical reference to the approximate SIZE of the car. Everything else (all that stuff not in the parentheses with the word "accord") was intended to be in comparison to last years' Prius. I'm sorry if my wording was unclear, and left your V6 feeling threatened. The Accord is a very nice car.

As a personal curiosity, do you offer to race anybody who thinks their car is faster than yours? You must put a lot of miles on that Accord, sprinting away from modified Dodge Neons. Honda makes reliable cars, though-- so you can expect years and years of racing random people on the internet from it, wherever they are "at."

If it will make you feel better, the next time you're out my way, you can totally waste my completely boring stock CVT Civic HX in a race. Hell, you can put your Accord against me on a bicycle. I guarantee I have less torque and horsepower than a V6, despite my shiny helmet. Victory will be yours, and the world will cheer the speed and might of your chariot.

Seriously, I meant no threat to your car. It is mighty super powerful wicked fast. And this is all intended in good fun. Sorry about the unclear wording.

Re:Might cost more for some of us. if off the grid

[blitziod]

umn I have seen some home wind turbines for less than 10k. They are not 1MW, but are enough to power a house if the engery is stored. The wind in amny places blows 24 hours a day. Small wind turbines produce more per dollar of capital in many areas AND are cheaper to maintain than solar systems. Installing wind power to a rural house( new construction OR not yet on grid) can be cheaper than running the wires to get it in grid. Sadly there are problems with wind for most urban or sub urban homes.

Hydrogen is pretty safe

[The Cookie Monster]

1) Take 2 similiar cars, one hydrogen powered, one petrol.

2) Rupture a fuel line in each of them.

3) Ignite :D

4) Stand back and watch

More detailed information is available here, but some strong quotes:

"In a series of 61 tests, where LH2 in thermoses were put under great physical stresses (such as crushing the thermos with a heavy object), there was never a case of detonation as a result of the direct blows"

"...confirmed that hydrogen never detonated from impact - not even when bullets were shot through the tank."

Not any time soon

[ae-valkyre]

It takes a long, long time to get things standardized. While this is indeed a cool concept, it won't be in too many households any time soon.

Better power source

[twenty-exty-six]

My house is powered by a gerbil in a wheel.

Don't forget the big picture...

[Genda]

Even though hydrogen doesn't add carbon to the atmosphere it does have significant environmental impact;
1. Cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen, makes it possible to loose hydrogen to space (because it's so light.)
2. Some of that hydrogen will eat away at an already damaged ozone layer. Hydrogen is very good at destroying ozone.
3. Transporting hydrogen is difficult... it's light, so you either have to pressurize it or make it a liquid... in either case, accidents in transport could be devastating (hydrogen burns incredibly hot.)
A hydrogen economy could be wonderful for the world, we just have to make sure that hydrogean doesn't leak out into the environment. Otherwise we'll just be trading one set of problems for a new (and potentially worse set of problems.)

Genda

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[kauttapiste]

What I've read about hydrogen and also about the Hindenburg disaster, is that hydrogen doesn't actually go boom, like many people seem to think. Hydrogen actually burns in a volume just about the size of the gas itself. So it doesn't expand while burning like explosives.

This means, that no-one onboard Hindenburg actually exploded or even burnt because of burning hydrogen. Maybe they were cast with some hot water, who knows, but the only casualties resulted from the actual crash. Any other "filling" would not have kept it in the air much better.

Hydrogen is actually less flammable than gasoline, so it's much safer in that sense, than gas. People saying, that hydrogen can't be used in houses or cars because everything will go boom, are simply wrong and have no actual knowledge of the area.

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[Sique]

No. It was finally the aluminium hull and structure of the Hindenburg, that caught fire. Think it as a long chain: First something catches fire by a lightning streak, thus lighting up the hydrogen. With the hydrogen burning the fire gets so hot that the aluminium structure starts melting and catching fire too. And burning light metals can't be extinguished by throwing water, foam or carbondioxyde on it. They just reduce the water to hydrogen and the carbondioxyde to carbonmonoxyde, which then create an explosive gas if they reach fresh oxygene. The only thing you can extinguish light metal fire with is powder (which consists mainly of a sodium compound which I don't remember the name right now), and I doubt the firemen in Lakehurst had enough powder available (was it even used to extinguish fire in 1937?)

Lets put it like this: The commercial air ship aera did in fact end with LZ129's catastrophic landing. But this was just the last blow to an already endangered concept. The track record of commercial lighter-than-air traffic was abyssmal even before the Lakehurst event. For instance only half of the LZ series ships ever build did NOT end in a catastrophical event. And trans atlantic flights have been proven possible by airplanes already 15 years ago (The "Spirit of St.Louis" being rather one of the last sportive attempts to cross the atlantic which got famous because Charles Lindbergh missed his original destination in Ireland and landed quite remarkably for the press in Paris).

Re:Overreaction on slashdot? Never!

[ffallen]

Bad day to quit consuming Caffeine . Yes, after I posted that I realized misunderstood the intent of what you were trying to say. And, yes, I do race all those modified Civics, etc. Cuz, the speed of the car is actually not the most important part of street racing..... its massive balls and a small penis... Cya, Mea Culpa.

Re:I have been saying this sort of thing for years

[horza]

10 - Hydrogen fuel use can really lower smog.

And noise pollution. Fuel-cell based scooters/motorbikes/cars powered by hydrogen are silent. As as you say later, they will easily out-accelerate any petrol driven vehicle.

Phillip.

Re:Post a link!!!

[o'reor]

Here is the DOE site for alternative fuels.

There is a comparison table (PDF format) stating the following:

"Biodiesel is domestically produced and has a fossil energy ratio of 3.3 to 1, which means that its fossil energy inputs are similar to those of petroleum."

The whole document (and the site) make a very intersting read.

hear hear here

[poptones]

surprised no one replied to your comments. When I started reading about that thing yesterday I was still high from the surgery I had in the morning so I thought better not to comment. After looking at it again I have to say that "even high, it looked like a stupid design."

Solar>electrolysis>Hydrogen>fuel cell>conversion - what a stupid and wasteful chain of supply. Now I understand why BP and the oil companies are so into hydrogen - not because of the sale of hydrogen, but because of all that money they expect to make on their PV arrays! Batteries aren't 100%, but dumping and then reclaiming from the AC line is about as efficient as you can get, and if you have access to the mains AC any other storage (more than a few hours) is just a stupid waste of money.

If that thing cost $70k with all that crap either they were GIVEN all the collectors and electronics or the house cost $1000 to build. And if I could build a house like that for $1000 then I think I might need to consider cashing out and moving to Malaysia... they speak french over there, don't they?

Exercise Bike

[spleck]

I didn't see an exercise room with a stationary bike... just in case the power grid is down, its raining outside, and your hydrogen tank is empty.

Re:Hindenburg; Hydrogen not cause but....

[dbrower]

you, sir, are a loony.

I'm getting pretty tired of debunking this myth.

[Medievalist]

If the Hindenberg was "in effect, ...coated with solid rocket fuel" then you are "in effect" the Atlantic Ocean.

After all, you contain somewhat salty, slighty brackish water. So you must be the Atlantic, right? Lie down, I want to ride a surfboard over you a few times!

I used work for Thiokol and tested solid fuel rocket motors for a living. There is little or no reasonable comparison to be made between solid rocket fuel and the metallized dopants on the Hindenberg's skin (which were commonly used on other aircraft of the period, incidentally). The burn characteristics and stability of solid fuels are extremely different from metallic wing dope.

Ten minutes of research will show you that the page you linked is bullshit. Those people do not have a very firm grip on basic Aristotelian logic, or reality for that matter.... just because something has a few elements in common with something else DOESN'T MAKE IT THE SAME THING!

Not really thermite either.

[Medievalist]

It was metallic aircraft dope.

Real thermite is aluminum powder and iron oxide, basement thermite is ground-up beer cans and rust (iron dioxide not iron oxide)... harder to ignite and not as effective, but still fun.

Aircraft dope is another thing entirely. Not rocket fuel, not thermite, but aircraft dope.

Aircraft dope is insanely flammable to start with, and when you add aluminum it burns very very brightly - and there's the only valid comparison to thermite and aluminum-based solid rocket fuels, which also burn brightly due to their aluminum content.

The Hindenberg's skin was cotton doped with aluminized cellulose acetate butyrate. Not at all unusual for the time period.

Re:I have been saying this sort of thing for years

[dnamaners]

>"When you mix oxygen and nitrogen at high temperatures, you get NO - the infamous NOX measured by the EPA."

yes high temps and N2 = nasty nitrogen species. However, that is true for petrol combustion as well. So we simply continue the use of a catalytic converters in combination with combustion temperature control (egr vales & the like). This is the basis of our current nitrogen oxide emissions cotroll now.

This can nearly eliminate nasty nitrogen species that hydrogen combustion forms. in addition these parts will last longer and and work better for the elimination of most soot in the exhaust. that should even allow for a higher degree of coversion of the nasty nitrogen oxides back to N2.

Nice catch on that one though, I should have mentioned it....

NOT "painted with rocket fuel"

[Medievalist]

So the guy who points out that the fire from the Hindenburg was bright, like an aluminum fire, (hydrogen burns pale blue, almost invisibly) made the mistake of using shuttle motors and thermite as examples of things that also burn brightly because they contain aluminum.

And thus a generation of slashbots were born, yammering "the Hindenberg was painted with rocket fuel" and "no, it was painted with thermite"!.

The skin of the Hindenburg was cotton doped with aluminized cellulose acetate butyrate. That is NOT rocket fuel. Rocket fuel produces IMPULSE. Burning metallic aero dopes do not produce any significant impulse and thus are NOT USEFUL AS ROCKET PROPELLANTS. Therefore the Hindenburg's skin does not have the ESSENTIAL property of rocket fuel, therefore the Hindenberg was not "painted with a substance that was essentially rocket fuel".

Similarly, aluminized cellulose acetate butyrate on a cotton substrate cannot be used to weld steel. Thus it also lacks the ESSENTIAL properties of thermite.

I think I'm going to have to turn this one over the Babs Mikkelson.

Re:NOT "painted with rocket fuel"

[Dyolf Knip]

I have seen you bitching and moaning about this all over this thread. I have yet to hear you counter the claim that the chemical is similar to rocket fuel and thermite in that it has a high ignition point and so is normally quite safe but once ignited (by, say, a momentary high-energy electrical discharge) creates a high temperature flame which cannot be quenched because it has its own oxidizer. These are also ESSENTIAL characteristics of rocket fuel and thermite and aluminized cellulose acetate butyrate apparently shares it with them. So in this respect, it is very much like rocket fuel and thermite. These are chemical reactions most people intuitively understand to be spectacularly destructive and totally unstoppable and so the comparison, while perhaps not 100% chemically accurate, is not without merit. The merit, of course, being to point out that H2 in the Hindenburg was about as safe as gasoline in a car with spark plugs inside the gas tank.

If it'll help you sleep better at night, whenever you see someone say, "The Hindenburg was painted with rocket fuel", just pretend they actually said, "The Hindenburg was painted with a chemical that had a number of combustive properties similar to that of rocket fuel".

Lastly, just because two chemicals are not equally applicable for the same purpose, (i.e., they do not share all ESSENTIAL USEFUL PROPERTIES) it does not automatically follow that their other properties are disimilar.

Re:NOT "painted with rocket fuel"

[Medievalist]

1) Not all rocket fuels have a "high ignition point" although the shuttle fuel certainly does. (Over 300 degrees Fahrenheit when I was working on it, and it may be better now.)

2) Not all rocket fuels are "normally quite safe" as you put it. Look up the ME163 Komet for example. There are lots of less spectacular examples as well.

3) Modern rocket fuels can't be ignited by "momentary high-energy electrical discharge" because that is a highly undesireable characteristic. Rocket bodies build up tremendous static charges while moving through the air, and it's not unheard of for arcing to occur between parts. Modern igniters are designed to survive arcing between the match and the propellant case, and fuels are designed to be electrically safe, because this was empirically determined to be a Really Good Idea (tm).

4) Some solid rocket fuels can be quenched, despite having their own oxidizers. For example, a fuel can be mixed that only functions within a certain pressure range, so that opening an additional exhaust port will decrease the internal pressure and cause the fire to go out. There is a huge problem with re-lighting them at that point, but I digress.

5) Research is ongoing into low-temperature rocket fuels, and although there are no true "cold gas generators" with any kind of decent impulse, the military is going to fund the research until somebody solves the problem, because heat signatures are a military issue.

So, all the properties you list as fixed, are actually variable... they are not ESSENTIAL to rocket fuel, despite your claims.

The only essential property of rocket fuel is the ability to propel rockets. The Hindenburg's skin would not serve that function. Therefore... well, we're both tired of my bitching and moaning, so I'll leave it at that.

I can win that bet.

[Medievalist]

I'll take that bet... as long as we both start with dry gas tanks!

I drove my Prius at 60mph for several miles with an completely empty tank at one point. That was two years ago, and it doesn't seem to have taken any damage.

Re:Mod parent "TROLL"

[Syberghost]

Hey, Syber, am I an "eco-terrorist"?

I don't know, you're too much of a coward to allow any comparison of your views via past posts.

And there is no such thing as a "typical" solar cell plant.

I got my information from solarbuzz.com. What's your source?

I drive a Prius and I marched in protests against the War to Keep Texas Oil Expensive.

Fortunately, the whole country doesn't agree with you, or you wouldn't have the freedom to act like that. More power to you, though. If you choose to give your money to Japan instead of the US because we're in the war, whatever. Japan's in it too.

Re:Buy Amerikkkan!!!

[Syberghost]

Is your objection to buying Japanese products based on racism or nationalism?

Pragmatism. The taxes they'll pay on that income won't improve my national defense, or make my kids' schools better, or help keep my streets safe from crime.

I buy American because I want Americans to buy from me.

Re:I'm getting pretty tired of debunking this myth

[Medievalist]

That's the cleverest response I think I've ever gotten in a Hindenburg thread.

Naw, I worked with some A-holes, but not with the O-rings.