Slashdot Mirror
Solar-Hydrogen Eco-House
Cymage writes "An architect in Malaysia has built a Solar-Hydrogen Eco-house, the first in the world that is fully self-sustainable and runs entirely on hydrogen. The house has an electrolyser to generate hydrogen that runs off of solar panels, then that hydrogen is used for heat and electricity for the house. Pretty cool stuff. I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?"
250000RM is $65,800 US. I would guess it would cost more in the US though.
You should check out my methane-powered nightmare house on nacho night.
"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future," said Kamaruzzaman.
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.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
http://www.narvakitchens.com/Solar.pdf
"Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the atmosphere. I believe it is the fuel of the future," said Kamaruzzaman. "People tend to equate hydrogen with hydrogen bombs, but in fact, it is really quite safe because it is so light that it disappears into the atmosphere as soon as it is released."
Apparently physics is *not* this guys strong suit.
---- El diablo esta en mis pantalones! Mire, mire!
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.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Isn't it fairly ineffecient to use the electricity to make hydrogen? It seems to me you would get more usable energy by just useing the power the solar cells create directly.
==>Lazn
"I wonder how long before a kit is ready to convert regular houses?"
Apparently, you didn't even skim the article - the physical design of the house is just as important as the power technology. A Prius wouldn't get 60 mpg if it wasn't tiny and aerodynamic.
G
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.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
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.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
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.
Help save the critically endangered Blue Iguana
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.
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.
Craig Steffen
http://www.craigsteffen.net
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.
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....
A goal is a dream with a deadline
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.
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.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
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
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.
O=='=++
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.
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
"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."
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.
This is a myth ... American Solar Energy Society FAQ on energy payback.
O=='=++
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?
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.
Still, using hydrogen tanks as a storage medium for unused electricity is a nice touch.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Some people did survive. Yet it was effectively the death blow for commercial airships. So, one wonders how survivable are landing accidents of heavier-than-air vehicles? That is: was even the hydrogen accident really that much worse than the first that engulfs a plane full of fuel when it goes down? I don't know that a Hindenberg into the WTC would have burned as hot for as long as the planes did.
-dB
"It if was easy to do, we'd find someone cheaper than you to do it."
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.
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...
"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).