Slashdot Mirror
Getting Serious About Fuel Cells
electroniceric writes "For those of us who moonlight as politics wonks as well as tech nerds, you may have noticed posts (1,2) in the Washington Monthly's blog pointing to interesting articles about the business community's new take on climate change, world oil supply predictions as well as a fascinating article about lower-cost ethanol together with a new fuel cell technology that can use impure hydrogen. Are we really about to turn a corner in global climate change response? Is this all vapor and breathless journalism about a world-saving new technology, or is it perhaps a brilliant investment strategy? Nobody knows (or claims to know) better than Slashdot..."
It's a way to store and transport energy. Hydrogen has to come from someplace. It takes energy to produce hydrogen. Currently more energy goes into making hydrogen than is produced. But the previous poster brought up Biodiesel which is far more mature and cost effective for the state of the world economy. Use biodiesel as the tippy cup which well get us off the tit of fossil fuels and then we can move onward.
What could possibly go wrong?
Guess what? Nothing in the universe produces a net gain. It's all just a matter of converting evergy from one form to another. The only real question is, are any of the forms of energy we are using in the process, going to have serious health or environmental effects?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
As usual, noone's reading the article before complaining about the unavailability of hydrogen.
Now, the article's a little pie-in-the-sky, but it gives and overview of some interesting new breakthroughs. First, is the economic production of ethanol from the wasted part of the corn crops, namely stalks. Second, the possiblity of farming other, more ethanol-friendly crops like switchgrass, which can be grown on land not useful for food crops. Third, is a new and cheap device capable of extracting the hydrogen molecules from ethanol, even ethanol with a bit of water, so it doesn't have to be as pure as is found in today's gasoline mixtures.
I'd say the final breakthrough isn't about science, its about being realistic. There are drawbacks to these other technologies, namely they still produce carbon-dioxide and carbon-monoxide. They're not pollution-free, but possibly their less polluting than what we currently have available. The last breakthrough is about accepting the
very good even if its not the best. That's an important point.
Taken together, these breakthroughs are a bit aways from the market, but proper investments would help them come about sooner. I'm not sure I see why the ethanol lobbies should object as they could still get the money and sell the corn, too.
I always get the shakes before a drop.
Before the 1940's, most of the gas consumed in big cities was manufactured at the local town gas works by heating coal, coke or charcoal to 1000 degrees or more in an airtight chamber, then steam was passed through the coal to produce hydrogen and carbon monoxide. The basic reaction is
C(s) + H20 = H2 + CO
The process for making gas from coal dates back to the late 1700's and early 1800's, but was gradually abandoned by the 1940's and 1950's as more and more natural gas wells were being drilled and pipelines were constructed across the country.
If a method of removing the carbon monoxide from water gas could be devised, hydrogen could then be made in vast amounts the way it used to be in the 1800's, except this time for use in fuel cells rather than in street lamps.
Most major hospitals have LOX storage facilities on the grounds of the hospital. How often do they blow up? Remember LOX is just a 'little' more reactive than Liquid Hydrogen.
From your link
On Friday, August 6 2004, at approximately 9:30 PM, a hydrogen fuel leak in a Praxair tanker truck led to an explosion and fire outside Ballard's manufacturing facility located at 4343 North Fraser Way in Burnaby, British Columbia. The incident occurred as Praxair was preparing to transfer liquid hydrogen from a tanker truck to Ballard's hydrogen bulk storage tank. There was no damage to any of Ballard's facilities or equipment and the only person injured in the accident was the Praxair driver, who received minor burns to his face and hands.
The Hindenburg caught fire because the cloth it was covered in was doped in what amounts to rocket fuel. The disaster had little to nothing to do with the hydrogen. A charge differential between the tower and the Hindenburg created a spark and ignited the outside covering.
If it had helium instead of hydrogen, it still would have gone up in flames.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
You've got to be kidding, about city growth in Europe.
Rural areas are (still) vacuuming fast. (still, because its a 150-year old phenomena, if not older -- definitely as old as the Industrial Revolution). And cities (suburbia, mostly) are still growing.
Yet, some money is found to build decent mass-transit that goes along with an enjoyable city life.
We are not running out of oil.
Are you sure ?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Besides which, the clean running of diesel engines is often overestimated. State of CA did a study (not the 2000 study) in 1997 (IIRC) showing the effects of Small particulate matter on the lungs.
a te.html
The new 'clean' diesel engines are actually making matters worse because they burn the fuel so completely that the particulates being emitted are so small they are no longer filterable - by anything - and they get embedded deep in the lung.
At least in the past with older engines, the 'soot' was made up of larger particles you could filter out - be it in the exhaust or in your own bodys natural filtration system.
I can't find the link now, but I know the article well as I worked on a patent for a diesel filtration device in 98/99. Unfortunately we decided it was a wasted endeavour as diesel engine manufacturers were producing more and more engines which produce these fine particles that are just unfilterable (and invisible).
This link (and site) has some interesting facts, but it's not the complete study.
http://www.ems.org/diesel/diesel_particul
This is not completely true either.
While hydrogen will not explode randomly under confinement it is a gas at any reasonable temperature and pressure. In the gaseous state it has a far greater range of combustible concentrations in air. Basically if there is any source of ignition at all a ruptured hydrogen tank will burn violently and completely. As gasoline will only burn in the gaseous state it will only burn as it evaporates, and it is much less likely to ignite.
If you think that gasoline is as likely to explode as hydrogen then you have been watching too many american movies.
(This doesn't apply to creation on demand schemes, but then why not just use the energy source directly?)
I'm guessing that wasn't on their radar screen...
World oil supply predictions haven't significantly changed in decades, ever since the invention of the Hubbert curve in 1956, which predicted that the oil supply would rise in a bell curve and then fall off at the same rate. Of course there is quite a bit of sugary optimism, but as of the 1980's all the major reserves have been located, meaning that today we know pretty much exactly how much oil there is, and how long it will last.
It turns out that we are nearing that peak now, and since oil use is increasing rapidly, the second half of the oil era will be over much quicker than the first.
The US, by the way, has basically exhausted its supply (heard anything about Pennsylvania or Texas oil lately?) and with the middling exceptions of Candada, Venezuela, and Russia, most of the really big oil is in Saudia Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq.
The "business community" has known these figures for quite some time, because the entire world economy depends on it. But as long as it doesn't yet impact their quarterly balance sheets, they sure as hell aren't going to tell you, the clueless consumer or stock buyer.
It's important to understand that oil will never really run out completely, but will simply get more expensive until we are squeezing every drop of black crud out of every bit of shale. A good oil deposit will gush out of the ground with no effort at all. Thus the debate is really about cheap, readily-available oil. Expensive oil sucks as we all know.
If it makes you feel any better, the amount of coal in the world is basically unimaginable. We lost our appetite for coal well before we even found it all. In fact, WWI was lost partly because the machinery of the Central Powers was still running on coal, and the Axis struck out in WWII to get a piece of the oil action.
As for Bush and Kerry with regards to oil policy, you're basically looking at polar extremes (yes, Iraq really is about the oil...)
Gasoline is a favored fuel precisely because it is so safe. A simple tank is sufficient container.
Pressurized hydrogen gas is much more dangerous. The simple tank must become a pressure-holding vessel. I think this is what the general fear is.
There are ways of storing hydrogen that don't involve high pressure hydrogen gas in a tank. They're not as simple as a tank, nor as light when empty, but they aren't rolling Hindenburgs.
Actually, the only form of hydrogen storage efficient enough to be used for personal vehicles is as a solid in a metal hydride storage container. Other options, such as gas or liquid storage, are too bulky and heavy to be used in personal vehicles. Metal hydride storage is vastly more volume efficient.
The big plus to metal hydride storage, however, is that there is no way the stored hydrogen can explode. When the metal hydride is heated, it releases its hydrogen gradually...perfect for personal vehicles, but not good for massive attention-grabbing explosions like in the movies. If the metal hydride storage container is punctured, the hydrogen will seep out slowly, and the only way an explosion, or even combustion could occur, is if the hydrogen builds up over time in an enclosed space...not likely to happen in a vehicle cabin given the traditional location of fuel tanks on current vehicles.
I'm too lazy to find a proper paper about metal hydride storage, but you can read about it at http://www.ergenics.com/page2.htm. The current problem with metal hydride storage is that, while it's the most efficient hydrogen storage available right now, it's still not great...it's going to take several more years to bring the technology up to par and to bring the price down. The precious metals used in current metal hydrides aren't cheap as well. There is promise that carbon nanotube technology could drastically increase efficiency (I've heard rumors that carbon nanotubes could theoretically bring the efficiency from current 10% volume efficiencies to something like 70$). I won't hold my breath though...I'm sure it's decades off.
Furthermore the encouraging part of the article was the one CEO:
We accept that the science on global warming is overwhelming.
Sadly our current administration has lumped good science into the "liberal" and "elitist" part of their enemy smear lists.
It is the short sighted disdain for reason that will present the greater barrier to reducing our energy dependancy than shortcomings in technology.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Biodiesel can be made from waste vegetable oil, something that municipal sewage treatment plants typically spend lots of money to dispose of.
It can be made from algae.
http://www.unh.edu/p2/biodiesel/article_alge.html
The transformation of vegetable oil to diesel produces glycerin which may actually be more valuable than the diesel. Also, the transformation of the vegetable oil to diesel requires far less energy than would be required for alcohol based fuels.
Biodiesel doesn't require any new technology or infrastructure; it can run in existing diesel engines including truck, train, and ship engines so even if nobody buys new diesel cars it will reduce demand on oil reserves and CO2 emissions.
Biodiesel also burns more cleanly than petrodiesel.
The primary limit to biodiesel right now is poor quality control in commercially available sources and a relative lack of interest.
If you have the chance, look for a book called "The Exploding Metropolis" by William H. Whyte. It was written back in the 1950's when the US cities were first starting to expand, and suburbia hadn't yet formed.
Actually, the South of England is getting to feel rather crowded just now. With the "White Flight" taking place from London, David Blunkett seems to think that the UK can easily absorb 100,000 immigrants/year from third world countries. Meanwhile, none of the Scottish natives can afford a house/apartment in Scotland because of all the retired English refugees fleeing the Home counties.
If you do some research on the many of the other European countries, you will see that there is rural depopulation as all the young single people move into the cities - this is across Europe. Many of them are actually moving into London to escape the high taxation in their own countries; Sweden has a "luxury view tax" which is charged on houses with beautiful scenic view. It was meant to be targeted at luxury homes, but has hit fishermen who owned traditional houses beside lakes. Half the population of Greece now lives in Athens (4.5 million people).
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Just a quick point on diesel, it really does produce more nasty carcinogenic particulate matter than conventionally powered engines.c ulate.html )
(http://www.ems.org/diesel/diesel_parti
The reason disesel cars aren't popular in the US is that most of them produced do not meet pollution standards (trucks have a lower standard).
"Fuel cells, meh, they have their place. But accident safety with a hydrogen bomb under your hood is an interesting diversion from the subject in itself..." You know, I'm getting fed up with all the uneducated drivel I hear about how dangerous hydrogen is. You'd think, like this poor person, that you are carrying a nuclear detonation device in your car with hydrogen fuel. Let's compare the explosive power of hydrogen to the explosive power of gasoline. One cup of gasoline contains the same explosive power as one stick of dynamite. Now one cup of hydrogen has significantly less explosive power than dynamite. Hydrogen has a slower reaction rate as well, making hydrogen more of a flame than an explosion. Notice, for example, the Hindenburg did not explode. The hydrogen did burn, but had the ship been inflated with vaporized gasoline there would have been a rather large blast killing everybody in the air and on the ground. Hydrogen actually has other advantages as well. At room temperature and pressures it is a gas, while gasoline is a liquid. If a hydrogen tank cracked, the pressures needed to store it would force the tank dry in a matter of seconds. Hydrogen disperses quickly in the atmosphere, and burns off quickly so a devastating accident would not burn for more than a couple of seconds (you'd see a very brief ball of orange flame). Gasoline on the other hand, acts more like napalm. It's liquid at regular temps and atmospheric pressure, so it has no problems spilling and leaking everywhere. If it catches fire, it burns quite well and for quite a while. So hope you don't have any on you. Not to mention if there is a pocket or two of vaporized gasoline you may get some explosive results. Gasoline is a far more dangerous material, not to mention toxic (hydrogen gas is non-toxic). But hydrogen would be piss poor in a combustion engione because, as noted above, it doesn't pack the same kick as gasoline. Using hydrogen in fuel cells is a better way to go. No combustion necessary. Now I'm sure someone will bring up the challenger disaster and say "See, hydrogen is bad!". That's not accurate. It wasn't the hydrogen that was the problem, but the LOX (liquid oxygen). LOX is highly explosive,and that's what made the really big boom. You can have a room full of hydrogen, but it won't ignite without a supply of oxygen. I think a big step in getting hydrogen into public acceptance would be an education campaign. Maybe then people will get rid of their all-consuming fears about the evil exploding hydrogen tanks. Once the public accepts it and receives correct information, maybe change will happen at a faster rate. ~X~ "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear."
~X~
A press release from last year outlines a technique to create a dramatically improved catalyst to convert CO + H20 = H2 + CO2
Sorry, you have to purify the water first. On submarines this is old tech(very early 1960s). We used fresh water (all distilled from salt water) run through a de-ioniser to produce DI water. Di water is used in the primary reactor loop(no minerals=minimal corrosion) and the oxygen generator. Water going to the oxygen generator has potassium added (it's so pure it won't conduct electricity) then in 16 cells it goes through electrolosys. Hydrogen is dumped over the side and is reabsorbed into the seawater. The oxygen is sotred in banks. The oxygen gerator is nicknamed the bomb. When you have a leak involing oxygen and hydrogen at 3000 psi it goes boom and blows the covers off. The company that made these in the '60s and 70's was Treadwell.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
It has Oxygen, you know, that stuff in the atmosphere. It won't burn by itself.
Sure, oxygen won't burn by itself, but neither will hydrogen.
hydrogen requires oxygen to burn. lots of that in the atmosphere.
oxygen requires just about anything else to burn. lots of that everywhere.
However, liquid hydrogen can explode quite fantastically.
FLOUR can explode quite fantastically if you give it the right oxygen mixture.
And note that that 20% estimate is the oil that's cheapest to pull out of the ground. There's a large "proven reserve" that's in forms that, with current technology, uses nearly as much energy to extract as the oil contains. Of course, this is slowly changing, as more efficient extraction techniques are developed. But there's an ongoing problem that extracting the remaining oil (however much that may be) will take an increasing amount of energy. The deliverable energy in the remaining oil is a lot less than a 20%/80% ration would suggest to the naive reader.
When you measure the energy deliverable to the end user, we really don't have very good estimates of how much there is under the ground in "fossil" fuels. Most of the estimates you read come from sources with obvious political and/or marketing biases. And they never seem to give you the error bars. So don't take them too seriously.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.