Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Home-Based Hydrogen Refueling Station

Posted by samzenpus on from the burning-down-the-house dept.

Sportsqs writes "One of the main barriers to the widespread adoption of fuel cell vehicles has been the lack of an adequate hydrogen-refueling infrastructure. Beyond a handful of hydrogen stations, such as the one near Los Angeles International Airport, there just isn't anywhere to fill up. Step forward ITM Power, a UK company that has developed a hydrogen refueling station that could be installed at home, providing a ready-made solution for fuel-cell car owners."

26 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Save for the fact... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...that hydrogen is extremely flammable, often explosive, and very dangerous to work with, sounds like a smashing idea!

    Seriously though, I think a home fueling station would be a great start. Not only because it provides a convenient source of fuel, but also because it pushes the energy requirements to the grid. (Which isn't a bad thing if we finally build more nuclear power plants!) As long as the safety concerns of generating hydrogen at home are worked out, I'm all for it.

    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    1. Re:Save for the fact... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Informative

      ... that gasoline is extremely flammable, often explosive, and very dangerous to work with.

      If I spilled 1 gallon of H2 vs 1 gallon of gasoline I'd be a whole lot less careful. The H2 would be gone in an outdoor setting (or with an open garage) in a matter of seconds.

    2. Re:Save for the fact... by Sierran · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem with this comparison is that at standard temperature and pressure, gasoline is much less dangerous. This is because neither hydrogen or gasoline will burn as a liquid; they will only burn as they vaporize and become gaseous. Now, gasoline does this quickly enough that you can, in fact, light a puddle of gasoline easily as it is vaporizing. Fully vaporized gasoline, though, is more of a low explosive than just a 'flammable substance.' Vaporized hydrogen (also mixed with oxygen) is just as bad if not worse.

      Now, let's run that experiment again. If you spill a gallon of liquid hydrogen in your garage, ambient temperature and pressure means it will almost immediately flash-evaporate into explosive gas. Try it yourself: stick two leads from a 9V battery into water in a jar and watch bubbles of oxygen and hydrogen arise from the two leads. Now place a flame over the top of the jar.

      No, on second thought, don't do that unless you're in a lab with a flame cabinet and are experienced with lab techniques. But still.

      So the issue to me is this: Which is easier to prevent from vaporizing into an explosive? Easy. Gasoline. Just put it in a vessel that's airtight at STP. Make it somewhat sturdy if it gets warm out, but even heavy plastic will work. Hydrogen? Much harder. It's going to be under pressure, or a liquid which is hard to keep cold/pressurized enough to keep it so.

      Now, if this system has some way of sequestering the hydrogen into a safe delivery and storage mechanism, that'd be one thing...but...heh.

      --
      A hero is someone who knows when to run away. I am a hero. -Trent the Uncatchable
    3. Re:Save for the fact... by Sierran · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also, I want to know what it does with the oxygen it's going to get. There's a reason that submariners call the oxygen generator (which basically does this, splits water) 'The Bomb.' I'm sure they have an answer, but raw oxygen ain't safer. I guess you could burn it with a pilot light, but, well, no that seems dangerous around this thing. Better have good venting.

      --
      A hero is someone who knows when to run away. I am a hero. -Trent the Uncatchable
    4. Re:Save for the fact... by tjstork · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Nuclear is less cost-effective than wind, especially when one takes into account total life cycle costs and interest on capital costs.

      Get rid of all the stupid lawsuits, and the capital costs drop to 1/10th of that. All the utilities are basing their costs on the limerick experience, which just kept getting sued and halted over and over again by the fruitcakes until it cost too much. So its really like smashing someone's car in, and then saying, you can't drive because the windshield's broken.

      --
      This is my sig.
    5. Re:Save for the fact... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sierran already explained the situation fairly well, but I think it bears repeating. One of the primary advantages of gasoline is that it is an extremely safe fuel. Gasoline does NOT explode and is actually quite difficult to burn. It's only once you give gasoline time to evaporate that you have a problem. Fumes from gasoline are far more flammable and explosive than liquid gasoline. (I'm sure you can find some yahoo friend who can demonstrate the trick of putting a match out by dunking it in a barrel of gas.)

      Hydrogen on the other hand does not have a liquid form at temperatures that are attainable by household equipment. As a result, it easily vaporizes and mixes with oxygen to create the perfect situation for an explosion. One spark and POOF! you're dead. I do NOT recommend attempting the match trick with a container of hydrogen.

      Furthermore, hydrogen for vehicular use is usually kept in a highly compressed form. The fueling equipment will somehow need to pressurize your car's fuel tank with the hydrogen in a safe and economical fashion. That's nowhere near as easy as it is with gasoline, where we simply pump a liquid. This makes the hydrogen pump that much more dangerous to work with. (Being in a home environment, one of my first concerns is children playing with the equipment when their parents aren't watching.)

      So to summarize:
      Gasoline == Safe Fuel
      Hydrogen == Dangerous Fuel

      Now if you'll excuse me, my head is going to go have a rather painful talk with my desk about mods modding the wrong people around here. :-/

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    6. Re:Save for the fact... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Seriously, I'd like to know where you got your facts from.

      First off, gas isn't typically stored indoors, so I'm not sure why hydrogen would be.
      Second off, hydrogen dissipates by default, and gas fumes tend to collect in low areas.
      Third off, propane is not a liquid by default either, yet somehow that blows up a lot less often than gas does. Even though the propane tanks are frequently handled with a lot less care than gas tanks are.
      Fourth off, the hydrogen cylinders aren't going to rupture in a dangerous way as frequently as gas tanks do for the simple reason that they can be designed to fail in a controlled fashion a lot more easily that liquid containers can. Plus on top of that it's relatively straightforward to design a stress release and emergency discharge. Try doing that with a gas tank.

      It is true that gas in its liquid state is hard to light on fire, and that there is a relatively narrow range within which it's actually flammable, but it sticks around a lot longer to find that mix than hydrogen does. And when a gas tank ruptures the fumes do not dissapate on their own very quickly.

      Propane cars haven't caused these sorts of problems.

    7. Re:Save for the fact... by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One thing I've often been curious about.

      Our atmosphere is 21% Oxygen, 78% Nitrogen, and 1% "Other Gasses." If our cars were to start spitting out oxygen instead of CO2, what would this do the mix?

      I remember reading an article years ago talking about higher oxygen content in the atmosphere and it's effect on wildfires. So I wonder what might happen around, say, Los Angeles if all the cars that currently pump out CO2 started pumping out oxygen.

      Of course, I hear that breathe pure oxygen is a good cure for hangovers. So there might be some benefits to a higher oxygen content...

    8. Re:Save for the fact... by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      One my high school did was to run a tube from the can making the stoichiometric mix of oxygen and hydrogen, and run it under some soapy water.

      Being very very sure that the tube was covered with plenty of water, light the bubbles with a burning splint.

      Bang! It sounded almost like a .22 rifle.

      As you can well imagine, this attracted law enforcement notice.

    9. Re:Save for the fact... by Pitr · · Score: 4, Informative

      They won't start spitting out Oxygen. The electrolosis that generates the hydrogen would create oxygen, but using the hydrogen will re-combine it with oxygen, turning it back to water.

      --

      --Not to be worried, Pitr fix.
    10. Re:Save for the fact... by skelly33 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This would be done at the hydrogen generation station, not on the vehicle: Split O2 from H2, put the H2 in the tank, release the O2 to the sky. O2 mixes well with Nitrogen - we have life as we know it thanks to that. It will dissipate with the normal movement of air and not make a dangerous rapid oxidation cloud ready to blow at any second. Moreover, electrolysis is SLOW process - it would take all day for this to slowly release.

      O2 is only a problem when it is stored in volume. This can be done in limited amounts to pull away oxygen for medical or industrial (such as welding) purposes. But overall, H2 generation using this method will result in far more oxygen generation than can be utilized by industry.

      The cycle is completed when H2 is "burned" in a car - both fuel cells and combustive methods require the joining of O2 and H2 to form water. Any oxygen volume released will be perfectly balanced by the use of the H2, so it is a neutral cycle with no impact to the environment or atmospheric conditions, etc.

  2. But... by darklich14 · · Score: 2, Funny

    clearly, imagined fear is far more important than efficiency

    1. Re:But... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      clearly, imagined fear is far more important than efficiency

      You know the ironic part of this thread? I said I was in favor of having home hydrogen fueling stations. Yet clearly I'm a villain because I'm the only one who's NOT ignoring the very real safety issues presented by generating hydrogen in your garage. How evil of me! Being worried that the average Slashdotter doesn't blow himself to kingdom come by accident! :-/

      Several folks have mentioned propane tanks as an area where we currently use a highly explosive gas as a fuel. What those posters fail to consider is that the average propane user does not refill his tank at home. Nor does the local gas station. They exchange propane tanks rather than deal with the hazards of recharging an existing pressure tank. In addition, propane tanks are generally kept outdoors for general safety. You'll notice that gas stations use metal-mesh lockers outside to store the tanks. And your gas grill? You probably keep that outside too.

      So to reiterate, I love the idea of a personal hydrogen refueling station. My only concern is the safety matters inherit in having such a station in the average homeowner's garage.

      --
      Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    2. Re:But... by Rei · · Score: 3, Informative

      The funny thing? The efficiency is atrocious and the fear quite legitimate.

      As for the fear: check out what NASA has to say about hydrogen. Some excerpts:

      Ignition:

      "Hydrogen-air mixtures can ignite with very low energy input, 1/10th that required igniting a gasoline-air mixture. For reference, an invisible spark or a static spark from a person can cause ignition."

      "Although the autoignition temperature of hydrogen is higher than those for most hydrocarbons, hydrogen's lower ignition energy makes the ignition of hydrogen-air mixtures more likely. The minimum energy for spark ignition at atmospheric pressure is about 0.02 millijoules."

      ----

      Mixtures:

      "The flammability limits based on the volume percent of hydrogen in air (at 14.7 psia) are 4.0 and 75.0. The flammability limits based on the volume percent of hydrogen in oxygen (at 14.7 psia) are 4.0 and 94.0."

      "Condensed and solidified atmospheric air, or trace air accumulated in manufacturing, contaminates liquid hydrogen, thereby forming an unstable mixture. This mixture may detonate with effects similar to those produced by trinitrotoluene (TNT) and other highly explosive materials"

      "Explosive limits of hydrogen in air are 18.3 to 59 percent by volume"

      "Flames in and around a collection of pipes or structures can create turbulence that causes a deflagration to evolve into a detonation, even in the absence of gross confinement."

      (For comparison: Deflagration limit of gasoline in air: 1.4-7.6%)

      Leaks:

      "Leakage, diffusion, and buoyancy: These hazards result from the difficulty in containing hydrogen. Hydrogen diffuses extensively, and when a liquid spill or large gas release occurs, a combustible mixture can form over a considerable distance from the spill location."

      "Hydrogen, in both the liquid and gaseous states, is particularly subject to leakage because of its low viscosity and low molecular weight (leakage is inversely proportional to viscosity). Because of its low viscosity alone, the leakage rate of liquid hydrogen is roughly 100 times that of JP-4 fuel, 50 times that of water, and 10 times that of liquid nitrogen."

      ----

      It also covers how hydrogen likes to pool under roofs and overhangs, and that buildings containing hydrogen or hydrogen pipelines should have roofs designed to be blown away, as well as extreme caution on spark suppression. It also talks about how hydrogen can enter pipes and follow them to their destinations, and pool there.

      As for efficiency, the efficiency of a hydrogen economy is atrocious. Don't take my word for it; listen to peer review. Check out the convenient chart. Electric cars have three times the efficiency of hydrogen cars from a given power source. Even if your power is renewable, this tremendous efficiency difference can't be ignored. This means, for hydrogen, three times the land covered in solar cells, three times the dammed up rivers, three times the coastline covered in wind farms, and so on.

      Hydrogen is a complete waste of time. A fuel cell stack will weigh down and take up space in a typical vehicle as much as a modern li-ion battery stack, only give similar range, cost ten times as much, have less room for price improvement in fuel cell costs versus battery costs (platinum playing a big role in this), have a shorter lifespan (again, compared to modern automotive li-ions like phosphates, spinels, titanates, etc, not laptop batteries), more temperature sensitivity (yes, you read that right; modern li-ions are often good to -30 or less

      --
      The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
    3. Re:But... by mcmonkey · · Score: 2, Funny

      AKA,

      I have a couple mod points. Let me know which posts need to be unabused, and I'll mod you up.

      Wait...what?

  3. But far from the only barrier by frovingslosh · · Score: 4, Informative
    One of the main barriers to the widespread adoption of fuel cell vehicles has been the lack of an adequate hydrogen-refueling infrastructure.

    What hype. Gee, they can make hydrogen from water and electricity. This is news? It's important to note that this home system claims to be able to give a hydrogen power car a 25 mile ability to travel. Which works out to a maximum destination of half that without a way to refuel until you get home. Also worth noting is that another tiny little barrier to a hydrogen powered car is that the current fuel cells used in hydrogen cars drives the price of the car to over $1,000,000 US per car (Ownership of the few existing prototypes is being retained by the auto companies because they can't realistically sell them.) Sure, the companies say that they hope to drive the price down to $40,000, but they don't ever seem to give any data to explains how they came up with that number.

    While it would be interesting if the hope of making cost effective fuel cells became reality (it might not), it certainly seems more desirable, more practical and safer to not got through the hydrogen separation process in the first place. If the effort expended on fuel cell development were instead focused on battery, super capacitor and other electricity storage technology, a car could likely be recharged with electricity at home rather than being refueled with hydrogen. The range would be much greater (heck, it's already much greater than the 25 mile total travel capacity stated in the article), and a number of other problems would be avoided as well, including the problem of storing that hydrogen (it tends to leak out of anything and you don't want thick walled compressed gas tanks burning up range with their weight), and it is extremely dangerous in gas form in an accident.

    And I say this completely expecting some eco-geek will mod me down because they didn't think through the hydrogen issue and think it's a good thing.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:But far from the only barrier by frovingslosh · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wrong. The technology used in the fuel cells is just not there yet. For one reference see the current on-line Scientific American, who have an article on this which states "Toyota hopes to reduce its costs per fuel cell vehicle to around $50,000 by 2015. And note the word hopes, this may never happen, while battery capacity can already beat the range given in the article, and with this same research effort would very likely do far far better. And no need to build hydrogen fuel stations, jut some way to recharge cars when on a long trip.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  4. My solution by Zosden · · Score: 2, Funny

    hire mexicans to push our cars. They have to be cheaper than gas.

    1. Re:My solution by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 3, Funny

      hire mexicans to push our cars. They have to be cheaper than gas.

      But they don't burn as cleanly.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  5. Re:Why not go electric at this rate of fill? by vrmlguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This device can only provide enough hydrogen for a 25 mile journey with overnight operation. Battery powered cars get better results with the same amount of charge time, and no one is going crazy to buy them. At $4K, this is a pricy way to make a hydrogen car work less efficiently than an electric car.

    The thing is, electric cars need batteries, which are big, potentially dangerous in an accident, and difficult to dispose of when they wear out. It's relatively easy to convert existing engines to run on hydrogen (or natural gas, see below), so the automakers have an easier time switching over their productin lines, and in an sufficiently serious accident the fuel dissipates into the atmosphere quickly (making it safer than gasoline).

    In the short run, natural gas might be a good stepping stone to hydrogen. Yes, it will run out eventually, but IIRC you can convert an engine between them without much more effort than switching a home appliance between propane and natural gas. Lots of buses and delivery trucks run on natural gas already; in fact there's a "public" refueling station just a mile from my St. Louis home (but, when I inquired a few weeks ago, they only accept fleet credit cards).

    --
    Nothing for 6-digit uids?
  6. Re:Why not go electric at this rate of fill? by rohan972 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't travel 25 miles on most days and we are a two car family. We could convert 1 car over and it would work pretty well for us.

    --
    http://marriedmansexlife.com/
  7. Re:The inefficieny is staggering by skelly33 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Without going off reading the link provided by narf314 there, another oft overlooked advantage is the centralization of energy consumption. With hydrogen cars running from grid-power generated H2, what was formerly two forms of energy consumption (burning coal separate from burning oil) now becomes one. By combining the two, you now have one problem to solve instead of two: improve the efficiency and renewable resources going into grid power. There is nothing doing with regard to burning oil in 200 million cars, but something can darn well be done about 10,000 power plants (or however many we have).

  8. Re:bad idea by markov_chain · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do you have ANY idea how much electricity your vehicle needs to store to be able to provide a sustained power output of 100kW (assuming electrical engine efficiencies are close to those of internal combustion engines)?

    They are not, modern electric motors are around 93% efficient. Factor of close to 5 better.

    You want to add millions of CARS that need millions of Watts EACH?

    Megawatts of power for EACH car? :)

    There is NO substitute for crude oil. NONE. It is IMPOSSIBLE, no matter how many "nuclear" power plants you want to build.

    Depends by what you mean by "substitute."

    But frankly once the oil is gone, our "free ride" is over. Oil companies aren't "stalling" at trying to find an alternative energy source. THERE ISN'T ONE.

    In general I agree with your assessment of the quality of oil, but I don't share the pessimistic sentiment. I think the world will adapt; vehicles will be downsized, commutes will shorten, alternative sources will be used.

    --
    Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
  9. Re:Save for the other fact... by bpkiwi · · Score: 2, Informative

    That it isn't an energy source is a point worth repeating, because people can forget it. However, it is an energy storage method which can reduce our needs for base-load power generation.

    Imagine if this was successfully and safely scaled up to powering your house as well as your car. Now, you can run your power grid off solar and wind power because the intermittent supply would not affect you. You can also load balance power demands much more easily and prevent brown-outs, and in the event of a long term power supply issue people can ship in stored gas to keep the lights on.

  10. Re:Why not go electric at this rate of fill? by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Informative

    And Honda has had a natural gas powered civic on the road for many years already, it is considered the cleanest internal combustion engine ever produced. On top of that they also have a home refueling station you can lease as well called a Phill. It hooks right up to your home gas line.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  11. Synthetic propane by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

    If we're going to use a gas as chemical energy storage, we should consider propane rather than hydrogen. Hydrogen is a bit of a problem for large scale use. It makes metals brittle by infiltrating their structure. It can diffuse through the walls of most gas cylinders. It has to be stored adsorbed (poor capacity) or under high pressure (danger of explosion, heavy cylinder).

    In contrast, propane is easily liquified, relatively thin walled cylinders can store it safely, and it's fairly simple to convert a gasoline or diesel powered car to use it (disconnect fuel injectors, add regulator into air intake). We already have infrastructure to distribute propane. Many people are already familiar with it's safe use for grills, portable heaters, and RVs. Its safety track record is decades long. When it burns, it produces a visible flame.

    Because it is already in use for RVs, grills, forklifts, and some trucks, it's much more readily available. If I needed 100 pounds of gaseous fuel today, I know exactly where to go to get propane (and I can get google maps of locations in any state. If I need hydrogen, I'm sol. Existing gas stations can afford to adapt to propane fairly easily, starting by getting an above-ground tank and signing up for regular delivery. Some gas stations have already done this for grills and RVs so it must be at least somewhat profitable for them to do so. If demand rises, more will find it profitable. In rural areas, many homes already have their own propane tank and regular delivery by truck. Practically any natural gas powered device can be converted to propane just by replacing the metering orifice and regulator. The needed part is readily cheaply available for most gas powered devices already. The conversion can be accomplished by nearly anyone using only pliers.

    It burns cleanly, and if it was synthesized from carbon and hydrogen, it is carbon neutral.

    Propane fuel cells already exist if/when needed for fuel cell electric vehicles. They are already in use in Alaska.

    I really wonder if the "hydrogen economy" isn't more of an attempt to maintain the status quo while appearing to do something useful by insisting on a solution that requires multiple breakthroughs on several fronts and a brand new infrastructure just to get started rather than choosing one that requires only incremental improvements on proven technology and existing infrastructure.