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."

Comments

Re:Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.

[east coast]

ditch no-future subsidies for ethanol & Detroit

Unless I'm reading into this wrong, you're missing something...

For Obama's plan for the US to be the leader in alternative fuels we're going to need Detroit. He needs an auto industry that he can lay hands on and manipulate. Otherwise he's going to be relying on the goodwill of other auto makers to meet him half way to his goal and that's probably still going to involve subsidies. If these subsidies are going to exist either way I'd much rather have them here than abroad. By using resources in the US he will have some say and legislation will give him a hand to work with these assets.

We need to draw a line between the oil industry and the auto industry. As long as we treat them as the same we're never going to rise above the muck that keeps alternative fuels beached. It's a hard pill to swallow but it's still there regardless of our outlook on all of it.

Seriously, do you read /.?

[Coldeagle]

I've been scratching my head ever since I saw this, because we've had several new methods for producing/harvesting/storing hydrogen on /. for a few years:

• Hydrogen-Producing Bacteria Could Provide Clean Energy
• Mimicking Photosynthesis To Split Water
• Buckyballs Can Store Concentrated Hydrogen
• Nanoparticles Could Make Hydrogen Cheaper Than Gasoline
• New Solar Cell Harvests Hydrogen From Water

I got all of those by doing a search here on /. Those are just some of the top ones too. These methods are to new to have become a fees-able opportunity so far; however, given a few years and another few gasoline panics (we all know they're coming), and they'll probably come around to being more standardized.

Who Killed the Electric Car

[smist08]

The movie "Who Killed the Electric Car", showed hydrogen powered cars as just a huge delaying tactic used by GM/Ford/Chrysler to delay an alternative to gas. They had commercially viable electric cars (which they crushed) that were far more efficient than hydrogen will ever be, but didn't want to switch. A main reason being that you don't get all the other revenue from electricity like oil changes, selling gas, etc., etc.

Exclellent movie, well worth watching. Really makes you want to see the big three go under rather then receive another big subsidy.

Re:Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure.

[MarkusQ]

We're not building nuclear power stations for one simple reason: We don't know what to do with the waste byproduct yet

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.

• The volume (and mass) of waste per kilowatt hour of power is orders of magnitude lower for nuclear than for fossil fuels.
• The bulk of nuclear wastes can be cost effectively reprocessed to make more fuel, reducing the amount of new fuel that needs to be mined at the same time as you reduce the amount of wastes that need to be disposed of; neither is the case for fossil fuels.
• Much of the remaining nuclear waste material has a short half-life, meaning after a relatively brief period of storage it is no longer dangerous. Not so fossil fuel wastes, which are essentially stable and remain just as dangerous forever.
• The remainder of the nuclear waste material is long-half life solids which, due to the very nature of half lives, aren't very radioactive. This means they can be handled with reasonable precautions which is a double win since many of them are economically useful--unlike the waste products of fossil fuel use which are either to valueless (like CO2) or too dilute (like mercury) to be economically recovered.

--MarkusQ