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."
Is it just me or water can't be very very hot? At about 100 degrees Celcius, it vaporize... are they doing electrolysis on hot vapor? If so, can their tech be called Vaporware? :)
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
...perfect for espresso machines.
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.
Most nuclear plants are located in areas with rural populations. (or at least, areas that were rural when they planned and built the plants).
You can build the plant in the boonies, but you still need to operate in a region where you can attract enough workers to staff the plant.
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
So...how long before there's a lawsuit resulting from a scalding burn while at the drive-thru fill up?
Simple: Cost.
You'd have to build something on the same scale as the current oil pipeline system, but with the added hurdle of being able to hold hydrogen.
The current system won't work since it can't hold hydrogen.
Also with no immediate profit, people tend not to like investing is something they won't see return on in the short term.
Once you've got the nuclear reactor in your car, why bother with all this hydrogen business? You've got all the energy you need from the reactor itself.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Already invented:
Mini nuclear reactor could power apartment blocks
A nuclear reactor designed to generate power in the basement of an apartment block is being developed in Japan
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.
Does that mean they will be showing their privates in public? Are there any females on this public-private team? If so, then I am there for the 'unveiling'!
I had so many unwanted daemons on my machine, I had to hire a priest to cast them all out.
It has been known for some time that blowing hot steam across coke results in hydrogen, which is how most commercial hydrogen is made.
Here's the reaction
I thought of this when someone first told me about fuel cells. To anyone familiar with conventional thermal cycles and the basics of thermodynamics, the approach is obvious. Thermal cycles take advantage of thermal energy gradients. That such a potential could be exploited with fuel cells seems to be an obvious extention. Hot water is easier to separate than cold water, duh! So you heat the water up, separate it and then combine it in a cold fuel cell. The difference is energy you can use but the devil is in the details. It seems easier than using a turbine but you'd want one of those too if you can't extract all of the heat in electrolysis.
I'm glad someone is finally working on it. People are so slow. I expect the petroleum and coal industries to step in and kill it before anyone can use it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Why the hell not? I'm sure you're just another zealot who thinks these fat cats are all about the oil. But they're all about making money. So if this became a viable way of producing a medium to transport cheap energy, why wouldn't they want to get their hands on this?
They're not oil companies! They're energy companies.
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.
Generation IV Nuclear Reactors
Very high-temperature gas reactors. These are graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactors, based on substantial experience . The core can be built of prismatic blocks such as the Japanese HTTR and the GTMHR under development by General Atomics and others in Russia, or it may be pebble bed such as the Chinese HTR-10 and the PBMR under development in South Africa, with international partners. Outlet temperature of 1000C enables thermochemical hydrogen production via an intermediate heat exchanger, with electricity cogeneration, or direct high-efficiency driving of a gas turbine (Brayton cycle). There is some flexibility in fuels, but no recycle. Modules of 600 MW thermal are envisaged
The fellas at Ballard Power Systems seem to have an interesting vision in this regard. (I'm trying to recall what I heard on a CBC interview with one of the company's founders, so what I describe here may be partly my own fabrication). Anyway, they describe an electrical grid in which individual cars help generate and store electricity for the entire system. Something about micro power plants. You may choose to sell your power to the grid (when your car is unused), benefitting from the current market price of the power. Similarly, you can purchase electricity and store it in your car (in hydrogen form) hopefully taking advantage of a cheap power rate. Buy low, sell high. Anyway it all seems very interesting to me, an idea of millions of micro power plants contributing to the greater power grid. One big distributed storage and generation system, probably better at absorbing peak power demands too -- you see that it's 1 pm on a hot summer day and the grid will pay big $$ for your power, you take advantage of that.
This isn't really correct - although pretty much all the power reactors in the USA are water cooled (primarily due to the Navy's interest is nuclear propulsion), there are plenty of gas cooled reactors elsewhere. Most of our (Britain's) nuclear generating capacity is from either AGR (Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors) or Magnox (named after the Mg-alloy fuel can) reactors, both of which use carbon dioxide as the coolant.
So, the technology may be new to the USA, but there's are wealth of knowledge on designing and running these reactors elsewhere in the world.
Oh yes, they're arguably quite a bit safer than PWRs as well!
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?
To vaporize, water needs something to form a steam bubble around. Coffee grounds, sugar, or ridges on a metal pot will work for this. But, if you heat up pure water in a smooth ceramic cup in the microwave, there isn't anything to induce it to form steam. Thus, when you spoon that instant coffee in, it explodes.
If you don't understand any of my sayings, come to me in private and I shall take you in my German mouth.
Basically, yes.
This system works on the heat production to heat the water. So hydro or wind wouldn't work efficiently. Other systems that use the steam cycle to power turbines probably would.
Using a hydrocarbon based power plant would be defeating the purpose, besides, there's more efficient methods of making hydrogen from hydrocarbonds than even hot water electrolysis.
The mirror type solar power plant might work too, but they cost an order of magnitude more to make per megawatt than a nuclear plant. And they're not manintenance free once built.
I don't read AC A human right
There were interstate oil pipelines completed or under construction before World War II. U-Boat attacks on coastal tankers accelerated the process. Today, there are 200,000 miles of oil pipelines and 2/3 of US oil is transported by pipeline. Houston to New York, the cost is about $1 a barrel, or 2 1/2 cents a gallon at retail. Association of Oil Pipelines
radioactive waste, which is not only poisonous
So isn't the stuff that comes out of a coal plant's stacks. Except the nuclear stuff is safely in a pool, rather than in the air that I'm breathing.
but a geopolitical crisis
Just because it's a political "crisis" doesn't mean that it's ultimatly a geological crisis. There are ways to handle the waste.
And factoring in the energy to build these reactors reduces their efficiency
The build energy argument can be used for every technology. Heck, Solar and Wind both have much higher build costs per megawatt.
How about biomass reactors that generate hydrogen from agricultural waste, which are neither radioactive nor wasteful?
Research is progressing on this option too. May the best technology win. Changing economics as well as scientific developments will favor one or the other depending on the situation. People in my area often have multiple fuel heating systems. We'll heat with everything. Wood, Oil, Corn, Electric, and Natural Gas. Price of electricity goes up? Switch to Gas. Gas/Oil goes up? Use electric. Are you really cheap? Chop down some trees. Or buy some dry feed corn and burn that.
I don't read AC A human right
You know, I've never seen a post answered by its own sig before ...
No one person shoulders the cost of "total destruction of our environment", it is spread out among everyone. Yet, in your scenario, one person (or corporation or government) shoulders the entire cost, and thus risk. There will be many large corporations looking for this to fail, so you've got your work cut out for you. Until you can find a rich saviour, this won't ever get off the ground.
All we can do is point out the reasons why consumers want this, and the reward/risk ratio will change as consumers will demand it. The risk goes down (the competing energy sources won't be able to cause failure at this point), the reward goes up (there are consumers just waiting to empty their pockets into this rather than traditional fuels), and there will be competitors looking to get their own pieces of this pie.
This, by the way, is exactly how the capitalist "invisible hand" is supposed to work: consumers demand something, whether for purely selfish reasons (materialist), or for purely environmental reasons (it's a cause they're willing to pay for), or for any other reason. Point is, consumers demand what they want, and someone will eventually come along to give it to them. Thus, the key is to drive demand, in order to drive supply.
Nuclear plants are built in places where the conditions are right. Primarily where there is a large source of water for cooling. Usualy big lakes or rivers, sometimes oceans. You need a massive amount of water to keap them going without killing all the fish and such in the water source when the hot water is dumped back in.
Since the location of plants is defined by water, it tends to put them in the same regions where cities grew up, next to lakes and rivers. They try to put them in isolated spots, but by the nature of things, areas around them grow up.
You can't put them in the middle of nebraska cause they don't have a place to get anough water for cooling. Also you want your powersource near the place of use to eliminate losses.
Besides, their is nothing wrong with nuke plants in ones back yard, i would be perfectly happy with such a thing. Far better then any coal plant or similar. It's nuclear, their is nothing to fear, unless you are one with that bizare fear that something that is glassified then incased in indestructable storage containers that are then moved to remote areas has even a remote chance of ever harming you.
Has everyone forgotten the Three Mile Island and Hindenburg accidents?
Hmm... an incident (TMI) that happened over a quarter century ago? Another that happened 67 years ago? We've come a long way since these incidents. That's what progress is all about; living and learnign and USING this new knowledge for a better system.
And how is the hydrogen fuel to be transported?
With the use of the Texaco Ovonic Hydrogen Systems metal hydride containment units. It creates a stable form of hydrogen. The US DoT has already approved the system.
I'm afraid we'd be inviting disaster and a sitting target for terrorists.
These same circumstances exist today. We're not creating a new hazard.
(nucular for Dubya types)
This is a fairly wise remark from someone who seems to have posted before they sat and really given any thought on the subject. This is what's called a knee jerk reaction.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
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 300MW is the net amount of electricity that the reactor produces, not the amount of fuel that was put in. So, a fuel input rate of 600MW and a 50% efficient reactor would produce either 300MW of net electricity or 2.5 kg/s of H2. Basically, they're saying that the efficiency of producing H2 is the same as the efficiency of producing electricity. They are NOT simply using the electricity coming out of the reactor to directly produce H2. The efficiency gains come from using the waste heat of the reactor.
If this is released into the environment, then we're dealing with another greenhouse gas (water vapor).
It is far worse than one would imagine. You can read more about the dangers here about the byproduct of hydrogen combustion. Truly sobering....were they to put these in automobiles, they would generate a key component of acid rain.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
I heard they designed a car engine which could run off of silly conspiracy theories, but the Boy Scouts and Knights Templars suppressed it.
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
polar h20 molecules are flipped or spun as the microwave passes by them. because the em field emparts energy into the molecules, they can contain enough energy to phase shift. Think about covering a gym floor with basket balls so that none are touching. Then somehow make every ball spin at 10000 rpm. At first the balls would continue to sit on the floor spinning really fast. They have a ton of energy, but are still floor balls. Then a single ball is nudged into it's neighbor. Suddenly a chain reaction would happen with basketballs flying everywhere as the spin energy is converted into movement energy.
same thing happens in a microwave to h20, or any other free floating polar molecule. h20 just happen to absorb the microwave em very efficiently.