Slashdot Mirror
Ubiquitous Hydrogen Power Not Getting Any Closer
NewScientist has a story about the "hydrogen economy" that has been resting on the horizon for a decade or more. Despite a great deal of enthusiasm for and research into hydrogen-based power systems, the technology seems just as far away from everyday use as it's always been. A British startup, ITM Power, has recently claimed a breakthrough in lowering production costs by using a nickel catalyst (rather than platinum) with a membrane small enough for home use. But, even if their method is proven and adopted, it still wouldn't address huge energy efficiency problems in the process. "The point was made forcefully by Gary Kendall of the conservation group WWF in a recent report called Plugged In (PDF, pgs. 135-149). Kendall, a chemist who previously spent almost a decade working for ExxonMobil, highlights how the energy losses in the fuel chain - from electrolysis to compression of the hydrogen for use to inefficiencies in the fuel cell itself — mean that only 24 per cent of the energy used to make the fuel does any useful work on the road."
Are fossil fuels an energy source or a way of storing energy? Just a question of timescales.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Depends: Where is it?
If it's in the Sun, it's a source. If it's a tank we are shipping around, it's a way of storing energy, just like gasoline.
Sure it does. Most of the current hydrogen (in its raw form) is generated from hydrocarbons.
Not a typewriter
We have net positive energy right now with hydrocarbons, and it's not because of perpetual motion. It's because the energy we put into it (drilling, transport, etc.) is less than we get out when we burn it. That's because the majority of the energy to make the stuff was already put into it by the sun with some geothermal processes thrown in.
Thermodynamics applies to the universe as a whole. You can have net energy production or a decrease in entropy if you're limiting the scale (either in time or space) of your solution.
Not a typewriter
... is hydrogen an energy source or a way of storing energy?
For the purposes the hydrogen fuel cells are aimed at, it's a method of storing energy, an intermediary much like a battery. Only, apparently, much more inefficient. Power still needs to be generated somewhere to produce the hydrogen, as it is not found in large underground deposits.
The only advantage I see in hydrogen power over pure electric vehicles is the convenience factor you get from being able to "fill it up". And while I know gasoline is explosive and we've done all right handling it so far, allowing the average person to refill a highly compressed cylinder of hydrogen in their car has always seemed like a bad idea to me. What if they drive off with the nozzle attached, leave the cap off, or get in a crash that damages the tank, as seems to happen a lot with cars that are out there today. Also, average person may be stretching it a little, as I've also heard there is not enough platinum in the world to convert all vehicles to hydrogen power. While that point may be moot with the new catalyst described they will still be awfully expensive to buy and maintain, especially if you get virtually no efficiency bonus over gas.
Overall, what I don't get is why we are not building charging stations. Even if the Big Three can't/won't produce electric vehicles, there are definitely companies out there that aren't quite so scared of change. *cough... hybrid... cough*
The "Hydrogen Economy" was partly the result of a stupid book by Jeremy Rifkin. Read it and note how little it says about where the hydrogen comes from. It was promoted by the Bush/Cheney crowd as a means for diverting attention from electric cars.
Using electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen, then liquefying the hydrogen, storing it as a liquid, then recombining it in a car (either in an engine or a fuel cell) is incredibly inefficient. The only advantage over batteries is that it looked like it might provide more range. Battery energy density has improved in the last decade, though. Battery cost is still a problem. But none of the hydrogen cars are cheap. Nor do they really have that much range. Arnold's hydrogen-powered Hummer only has a 60-mile range.
BMW actually built about 100 "hydrogen powered" cars. But they mostly run on gasoline; although they can optionally run on hydrogen, that's mostly for PR purposes. The liquid hydrogen tank has a "use it or lose it feature"; the BMW vehicle will evaporate all its hydrogen in about 10-12 days.
It looks like an idea whose time has passed.
Neither, it takes more energy to make the hydrogen then you can get from it, and it is almost impossible to store...
Hydrogen is just a distraction, not a viable source of... well... anything really...
If hydrogen was so great, we would be all using it already, you can hose it directly into an IC engine and it would run with almost no modification.
The problem with hydrogen has been, and always will be 2 things.
1. Very difficult to produce, it takes a lot of energy, in the form of electricity. (Note: The concept of fuel cells is flawed inherently, because there is no way you can get more electricity out of the hydrogen then you put in to the water to make the hydrogen in the first place. Law of thermodynamics. I propose, we take that energy and store it in... say, batteries to power cars directly... There is no way that is less efficient then going from electricity to hydrogen to electricity.)
2. Very difficult to store. Needs to be kept under extreme pressure, and in some cases needs to be cooled.
HYDROGEN IS NOT A FUEL.
Not now, not ever, never.
WHY?
Because it takes more energy to MAKE hydrogen (i.e., snap the chemical bonds that embed it in various compounds) than you get out of burning it, EVEN AT !00% efficiency (which is impossible, of course.)
So, straight off, it's not a fuel. At best, it is an energy carrier.
TWO
IT SUCKS AS A CARRIER
A: Batteries and ultracapacitors are much better, and can be woven into the present infrastructure at a far lower cost.
B: There is no vessel on earth than can contain Hydrogen. It consists of a proton and an electron. Period. You cannot tighten the lid on a jar or whatever to contain it. It just leaks out. If it leaks out it either quickly bonds to something or it flies out of the atmosphere, gets ionised and then it's not even hydrogen - it's just an energetic proton. electronic bottles make the negative energy value of hydrogen as a fuel utterly farcical.
Therefore: HYDROGEN IS NOT A FUEL. IT IS NOT EVEN A GOOD IDEA FOR A CARRIER.
Those who seek "Business As Usual", i.e. the permanent continuance of the present energy glut circumstance are simply going to have to suck it up and deal with The Facts:
Petroleum is a limited resource that is either at or near peak or just recently past peak production. Its energy density and malleability are unparalleled - there is simply nothing like it. Hydrogen cannot substitute for it. We are simply going to have to re-order our society along the lines of the new reality. Don't like it? Tough shit. Those who resist will simply die off. Make plans or have them made for you.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Storing energy. And apparently not a very efficient one.
But then again, the first internal combustion engines weren't very efficient either and look where we are now.
Ha ha ha... Wait...
I assume that was a joke? Because ICEs are one of the most inefficient sources of energy in the world, they waste about %80 of their energy.
I would not say it's a question if timescales, but a question of energy balance.
No matter the timescale, you can't use X amount of hydrogen to get more than X hydrogen. You need extra energy just to get your original amount of hydrogen, and even more extra energy to get more than you originally had. So it's not a source, it's a storage with energy loss, it has negative energy balance.
But you can use X amount of oil (and no other energy) to survey and pump up more oil, and you'll end up with more than X. So it's a source, it has positive energy balance.
Of course at some point oil will stop being an energy source, 'cos pumping and refining it will require more energy than is recovered. Mineral oil can still be used as a very efficient energy storage for a long time, but the extra energy to pump and refine it will have to come from something else (ie. either from sun or from nuclear energy).
That's also the only comfortable solution to peak oil, if we start doing it early enough: build enough non-fossil power plants and use their energy to convert energy-negative oil reserves into usable oil and gas, ready to be transported and used like conventional oil products.
I assume you're rejecting the solution presently used by the fossil fuel industry, which is just to dump it directly into the environment at the point of generation, right?
'cause if that's on the table, well, problem solved.
But if you, quite reasonably, reject this solution then it shouldn't be permissible for the fossil fuel industry either. So comparing apples to apples we see that nuclear power is much better off.
--MarkusQ
Couldn't the safety margin be increased? i.e., if you have a tank rated for 2400 psi, you only fill it to 1200 psi?
Sure, but you just doubled the size and cost of the tank or halved the range of the vehicle. It's already uneconomical, they're looking for any way to cut costs.
Would that solve the hydrostatic testing?
Not really. At most you'd extend the testing period a bit. The whole reason behind testing is that testing is cheaper than just replacing.
I don't read AC A human right
Or even more accurately called the Illuminati, Stone Cutters, Merry Pranksters conspiracy.
What?
The issue here is not production of H2 rather storage and transport. You can make H2 for ~$1.40/Kg from steam methane reforming, but it jumps to ~$10/Kg by the time it gets to the pump. The key to the whole H2 situation is driving down the economics of storage and transport. Moving away from compression and gaseous/liquid H2 transport. Cheaper electrolyzers etc. will just move us from centralized H2 production to distributed H2 production, which will help costs, but likely not produce the mass of H2 we need. That likely will come from SMR of biomethane, wind power, thermal power, nuclear power etc. all centralized H2 sources and I mean all of them not just one style. We solve the distribution issue the energy balance will be tighten to something useful. We need to stop thinking of one solution or ignoring a potential solution, it's going to take a lot more than one persons pet concept to solve the mess we're in.
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
Grams of Hydrogen in 1 liter:
Liquid Hydrogen -- 71 g.
Gasoline (C8H10) -- 118 g.
Diesel (C12H26) -- 130 g.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Actually you can skip two of those steps, jumping directly from heat to hydrogen in a "thermochemical" process such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur-iodine_cycle
Mazda has abandoned the ICE and replaced it with a rotary engine. In theory it should be as efficient as a rotary electric motor, but in reality it leaks hydrocarbons like a seive and just-barely passes California's ULEV requirements.
So they are trying, but so far not much success has been achieved. Others are experimenting with battery-powered electric cars, but they still have not overcome the minimum two-hour recharge time. Gasoline/diesel still has the advantage there of being recharged in just 5 minutes.
The best approach so far is to combine both electric and gasoline/diesel into a single car
(i.e. a rechargeable hybrid, preferably from a solar roof).
FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
Um.. The Wankle rotary is an ICE. The primary advantage with the wankle is power/weight ratio, not efficiency.
Oh and regular piston engines are used in all Mazdas except the RX sport cars.