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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

If you think that's cool...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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?

[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...

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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: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: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.

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: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: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: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...