Slashdot Mirror
Creating Hydrogen With (Very) Hot Water
carbonman writes "NYTimes is reporting that a public-private research team will announce on Monday that they have discovered a new technique to produce pure hydrogen that is far more efficient than conventional methods. The advance could be a significant development in attempts to realize the dream of the hydrogen economy in taking gasoline-powered vehicles off the road, and without releasing carbon dioxide emissions that are linked to climate change. It does, however, require the use of advanced high-temperature nuclear reactors, none of which have been built on a production scale before."
swiftstream adds a link to the same story at the no-reg Indianapolis Star, and summarizes the method as "electrolysis of very, very hot water."
I think the reality is that there are so many unecissary regulations in the states, that nuclear power is impossible - and likely will be for a long time. I myself wish I had enough money to buy a ship and put a nuclear reactor on it out in international waters and sell safe and simple hydrogen back to the mainland. It would also be a cool way to reach the next generation of liberty - I mean we haven't really seen any new methods implemented to improve individual freedom and liberty (especially economic) in government in nearly 200 years. I wish I could start a nation at sea.
When the current Danish natural gas pipeline network (the one that connects cities and houses) was designed, one of the requirements was that the network could carry hydrogen instead of natural gas.
If they drilled deep enough into the Earth's crust, they could do away with the nuclear reactor bit altogether, and use the natural heat of the planet.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Someone already registered for you
If your lazy, get the firefox plugin
If you're a slow learner or at work, get the IE extension
I assume you also have touched a cup of microwaved H2o and had it instantly boil over on your hand.
It's an interesting apparent contridiction because the water seems already hot enough to boil, yet it does't until the container is moved.
Anyone care to explain why this is?
Hmm, nuclear reactions? Isn't the point to get hydrogen to be used with fusion(w/ helium3) without any byproducts? If you need to start using nuclear reactions, this still isn't a 'great' way to get hydrogen. I still believe using solarpanels and using electrolysis for getting hydrogen is still the best way. No CO2, no nuclear waste... Well that's just my opinion...
Fusion of helium-3 would be divine. Pity there isn't much here on Earth. (The moon is another matter.) It also usually costs hundred of dollars per litre. Bear in mind that there are several other reaction paths to fusion that don't require He-3. They aren't as ideal - just more practical.
Solar panels have their place, but they're never going to produce the amount of hydrogen needed for even a single nation's infrastructure. Even if solar panels were much more efficient, electrolysis itself isn't very energy efficient.
(As an aside, I was pleasantly suprised to run across an article about using good old Stirling engines & an array of mirrors to generate power from the sun - at higer efficiencies than panels and at costs comparable to fossil fuels. Have a read)
Now, on to the point of the story. Basically, some of the Generation IV nuclear reactor designs* can be used to produce lots of hydrogen, more or less as a byproduct of their operation. (Because of the extreme temperatures) So the fact that you've suddenly got the means for a hydrogen economy is a side-benefit.
Gen. IV reactor designs are cleaner, safer, more efficient, and generally smaller than their clunky old (current) counterparts. Yes, they are still fission. And while MOX reactors (which compose some of the designs) have questions about fuel reuse, a bona fide fusion reactor can be used to re-enrich spent fission fuel. (ie, blanket of uranium around reaction chamber, etc.) Fusion lets you make fission clean, or as close to it as possible.
Why is that important? Because no one is going to initially drop the trillion or so dollars to build the first commercially viable fusion reactor, when and if one is ever designed. ITER itself will be just a stepping stone, if it ever actually gets built. In the mean time, we'll still be fissioning away...
*Because of irrational fear and paranoia in the USA, most commercial reactors are Generation I or II. Not much has changed since the 70s. Nuclear can be dangerous, but it generally isn't and needn't be. It's debatable whether government run power plants would be any better, but it scares the hell out of me that our reactors in the USA are run as cheaply as they can possibly get away with. Capitalism is great, but you just can't try to undercut safety.
A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
Whenever I see someone cite "cost" as a major hurdle to this kind of investment I just shake my head. What you actually mean is "short-sightedness", since the cost of not doing something like this is never represented properly. Someone needs to put a dollar figure on what the total destruction of our environment (ie the planet), and the impact on human health, of car exhaust/smog/fossil fuels truly is.
I think that if these costs were factored into the equation, the money involved in building a few nukes to power a clean, H2O-exhausting economy would be MINISCULE by comparison.
"Nokia is not a country, it's the capital of Finland!" -Moderated "Informative". Yeesh.
Is it possible to take this naturally superheated water and use it to create hydrogen more efficently?
Yes. Hydrogen from electrolysis reacted in a fuel cell makes for a very inefficient electrical storage battery. It makes battery electric cars look like a good idea in comparison (and I freakin' hate electric cars!).
True, but water vapour condenses out of the atmosphere as precipitation. There are hyrdological and carbon cycles that dictate equilibrium for greenhouse gases.
We actually wouldn't have a problem with carbon dioxide emissions if they were a part of the carbon cycle. Biodiesle would not contribute to the greenhouse effect, since the amount of CO2 released and the amount absorbed by the plants producing the fuel would be in equilibrium. However by burning trapped fossil material, which has been out of the carbon cycle and buried for millions of years, we are altering the environment.
Carbon dioxide is normal in the air; animals emit it, plants consume it. Add more total carbon to the system, by depleting an ancient carbon sink, and the net level of CO2 in the air rises. Since the hydrogen you get from electrolysis comes from water, you aren't adding to the net levels of water vapour. For every ounce of water you're releasing into the hydrological cylce, you're taking an ounce out at the other end to get the hydrogen in the first place. No disruption in the hydrological cycle, no warming.
Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
An oil pipeline would make a much more impressive explosion than a burst H2 transport. (primarily because H2 dissapates _very_ rapidly).
I think hydrogen is safer w.r.t. terrorists/industrial accidents.
Unfortunately we don't have an inexpensive way to get it from hither to thither.
It might be that we have to go to intermediary carriers, like methane or something.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Personally, I would rather run electrolysis in my house: plug the Hydrogen car into wall. Then I won't have to go to the gas station anymore.
The question is of course one of efficiency, how efficiently can a reactor turn water into hydrogen and how much does it cost to build and maintain the infrastructure to carry around hydrogen in a safe manner, vs. the cost of lossy transmission lines and then cost of hydrolysis.
The other advantage would be that if the goal is to produce electricity rather than hydrogen, the cost of electricity will go down too.
As one who hates going to the gas station, I'm all for hydrolysis at the home.
Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
Comment removed based on user account deletion
At the levels of CO2 that we're putting into the atmosphere today, it's likely that biological sinks could reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels in about 200 years, but if we continue to burn fossil fuels for the next two centuries, the biological and short-term chemical sinks will have been saturated.
Based on what we know about the slow (geological) sinks, it could well take on the order of a few million years to get back to preindustrial levels of CO2 from the levels we expect if we burn up all the known coal reserves (estimated at around 250 years from now at current rates of consumption).
Therefore, I am much more concerned with CO2 emissions than with nuclear waste.
The "electrolysis" is performed in the gas phase, not the liquid phase. When we are talking "very hot", it is likely well above 1000 degrees Kelvin, maybe even over 1500 degrees Kelvin. That is very hot, well beyond the critical point of water where the definition of a liquid loses any physical meaning.
If one looks at the thermodynamics of splitting water, higher temperatures reduce the delta-G (change in Gibbs free energy), which is a measure of the minimum amount of work (such as electricity) needed to split water. Of course, the actual energy to split water is delta-H (change in enthalpy), which does not change much with temperature, so the difference can be made up by heat (at room temperature, delta-G is about the same as delta-H of the splitting reaction.) In addition, at very high temperatures, kinetics of reactions become less of an issue.
Without looking at what they have specifically invented, I would guess they are exposing the very high temperature water vapor to a solid oxide electrolyte (such as zirconia). By applying an EMF across the electrolyte, it acts as a "pump" for oxygen, "pumping" it out of the water. Interestingly, oxygen sensors for automobiles use a similar principle, where the oxygen partial pressure in the exhaust gas induces a measured EMF across a solid oxide electrolyte.
What about huge space-based mirrors (not the glass kind) reflecting sunlight down to a small area on earth where it could be converted to electricity...this can also be used for regular electrolysis or heating up the H2O for heated electrolysis. They are developing space sails for ships...probably can be adapted to become mirrors?
I'm curious to read the real press release on Monday because the article doesn't have enough information to really judge the merits of the idea.
First of all, the temperature at which the process runs is very important. If you reach a high enough temperature, you don't even need electricity, the water will break up on its own. However, in addition to forming hydrogen, it will form other radicals which will rapidly corrode your system. This has been demonstrated with solar concentrators.
Second, as people have pointed out, running at high temperatures will also require running at high pressures. But generally, electrolysis of water doesn't like high pressures much since one molecule of water takes up less space than 1.5 molecules of H2 and O2. It would be nice to know what the equilibrium concentrations are at their operating temperature and pressure.
Third, if the process is as simple as electrolysis of hot water, then there isn't any reason why it requires a nuclear reactor. A solar concentrator would be sufficient. However, it might not be as cost effective. If they're relying on waste heat from a nuclear reactor to make the process cheaper, I would want to know why this process is better than just using the energy to power a steam turbine.
You can perform the same trick the other direction. If you carefully cool a cup of water using the right container, you can get it a fair amount below 0C at normal pressure. Throw in a grain of salt, and the whole thing violently freezes, sometimes shattering the container.
Phase changes just require some sort of trigger, often a tiny bit of turbulent flow around a sharp corner, scratch, or any local disturbance. The further the fluid is above or below its expected boiling or freezing point, the more unstable the situation is and the smaller the trigger needed.
With standard household stuff, superheating or supercooling water by 5C-10C is doable. The shattered glass trick is tougher because you need to supercool water about 15C-20C to get sufficiently violent freezing. When the fridge compressor is running, it usually generates enough vibration to trigger the phase change before the water is cold enough.
"The Thermal Conversion Process, or TCP, mimics the earth's natural geothermal process by using water, heat and pressure."
http://69.18.157.103/what/index.asp
So, rather than risk the issues with Nuclear power; using a TCP facility to clean up a chemical waste dump and bring oils and hydrogen to the local populace. Note: not included in their website but in other articles, the size of their facilities can either be huge or small, small being something which can be fitted on the back of an 18 wheeler.
I don't know how large the facility would need to be to safely deal with the heats necassary for making hydrogen, but we may be looking at a "Light industrial complex." answer.
The sender is wrong with this process being "electrolyzing", electrolyzing is process of turning hydrogen and oxygen into water, and in doing so creates electricity, done with technology called fuel cells.
Using carbon electrodes with water to create hydrogen that feeds fuel cells has, and is being done by some universities in America and even by NASA as a pollutant free alternative to powering low current lab devices.
The carbon in those electrodes has to come from somewhere. It is NOT a renewable resource or anywhere close to a renewable energy source
According to this site
"Carbon is one of the most abundant elements found on earth" which is what the sender stated not "renewable".
This "miracle device" makes use of a very old concept, and there is much work going on with coal gasification, and no need for the use of electricity. Very useful and legitimate, and it is by no means on the "fringe", just don't tout it as something that it isn't!!!
I'm not aware of some of the new technologies being looked into by energy board but I've seen a car powered from the process of using carbon electrodes and water to create hydrogen and it's works, not only that it didn't cost much to do. It might not be the most efficient technology to power high current devices but if it can power a car, why isn't it being used to power cars?
...non-fossil-fuel using energy sources...
There are really only two practical such sources right now: 1) nuclear fission and 2) solar (indirectly through wind or hydro)
If nuclear energy is used to make electricity, we might as well just build ordinary fission power plants, because we'd still have all the problems such as radioactive waste.
Solar energy can be used to make electric power with solar cells and large mirror arrays could heat water through which the the electric current from the solar cells would pass to make hydrogen. This technology exists now, but it is not likely to be cost effective as long as fossil fuel is still as cheap as it is now.
The hydrogen would be in effect a way to store and transport the solar energy to where it is needed.
All theory is gray
can't they make it in a closed system? closed at least down there...
I'm surprised that this gets no attention.
Abiogenic petroleum
modern Russian-Ukrainian theory of deep, abiotic petroleum origins
Couldn't you pump something that didn't pick up quite so much shit and have a big head exchange at the top to heat the water.
That would solve one of the problems.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Normally I'd use it to make "instant iced coffee"... so I started to pour it into a cup. It poured out as a liquid and started piling up in a column of ice. VERY odd visual effect - it looked like something CG happening in real life. I called over some coworkers, and they thought it was one of the coolest things they had seen. It looked a bit like a "dribble castle", for those who have made them at the beach.
We tried to reproduce it later, but it never happened again.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I currently work in the refining business. Refineries consume a LOT of hydrogen to remove sulpher, and to convert parts of the crude oil stream into more valuable/usefull products. Hydrogen usage has gone up by quite a bit in order to produce cleaner fuels. You don't need a "hydrogen" based transport system to be able to use cheap sources of hydrogen in the energy business. Currently, most hydrogen comes from natural gas, and sometimes coke. With a non hydrocarbon source of hydrogen a lot more hydrocarbons could be converted into the liquid fuel that our society really wants. Commercial non hydrocarbon hydrogen sources changes the economics quite a bit since many hydrocarbon based fuels tend to have price correlation. Natural gas, and hence hydrogen prices, move roughly in step with oil prices. Breaking this relationship for the refinery business would be a HUGE change. For instance, Fuel oil, mostly a waste product these days, could be shifted into diesel or gasoline. Coal, Natural Gas, and other hydrocarbons not suited for liquid fuel usage could be far mor easily converted into other products. Further, a refinery is an energy HOG it requires a lot of steam and electricity to function. Much of that is produced with "extra" waste products. A close reactor that could supply, hydrogen, electricity, and steam to a facility would allow for great output per barrel (since less is used for fuel) and lower operating costs. Given cheap plentiful hydrogen a HUGE range of things could be converted into liquid fuels. This could change things in ways many other posters have not quite thought of. Basically, a more efficent usage of current hydrocarbons without having to make a massive new investment in capital.
Sweet analogy, except that it's totally not applicable. Water molecules come rapidly into thermal equilibrium in liquid. The grandparent is just describing "ordinary" superheating, something that is especially easy to do with a microwave but that you can also accomplish with an ordinary stovetop and VERY CLEAN glassware.
Here's a nice Sandia link that makes it absolutely clear that even a small-scale solar thermal installation can produce temperatures comparable to those in "nuclear explosions" the article here is only talking about 2000C. This solar furnace is used to test the "failure thresholds of high temperature ceramic and refractory materials." So why in the hell is a nuclear power plant the only option to produce the heat they need to use with their fancy ceramic filter? No doubt the solar furnace in that photo produces temperatures far in excess of what their ceramic filter can even tolerate.