Slashdot Mirror


Storing Hydrogen At Room Temperature

cylonlover writes "Hydrogen storage, along with hydrogen production and the lack of infrastructure, remains a major stumbling block in efforts to usher in hydrogen as a replacement for hydrocarbon-based fuels in cars, trucks and even homes. But with the multiple advantages hydrogen offers, developing hydrogen storage solutions has been the focus of a great deal of research. Now an MIT-led research team has demonstrated a method that could allow hydrogen to be stored inexpensively at room temperature."

152 comments

  1. talk to cowboy neal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He stores methane at body temperature.

  2. that's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's why I bought a Saturn.

  3. DEaRs MIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Start with a VW (not the new kind)
    2. Obtain permission slip from parent for kegger bottle
    3. Drill Holes
    4. Show off your hack job to news 10

  4. The trick is using oxygen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just mix it in, 1 part to 2, and all my room-temperature storage problems solve themselves!

    1. Re:The trick is using oxygen by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2

      Except for it being exothermic.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:The trick is using oxygen by Amouth · · Score: 1

      details details, we will make up for it in volume.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    3. Re:The trick is using oxygen by treeves · · Score: 1

      He was not precise. He meant to say he buys it *pre-mixed* with oxygen at a 2:1 ratio.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    4. Re:The trick is using oxygen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just mix it in, 1 part to 2, and all my room-temperature storage problems solve themselves!

      Surely it's better to bond it to carbon and oxygen.

    5. Re:The trick is using oxygen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make it up in volume!

      What's wrong with you people? Mod parent up already!

    6. Re:The trick is using oxygen by Megane · · Score: 1

      But will the EPA let you get away with storing large quantities of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  5. Importance of Hydrogen by sonicmerlin · · Score: 1

    Before people write off hydrogen as old hat in the face of the proliferation of EV's, keep in mind planes, ships, and the ground shipping fleet require far too much energy per trip to use batteries. For these vessels, It's going to be a race of energy efficiency and cost between hydrogen and bacteria that can utilize airborne or liquefied CO2 to produce hydrocarbon fuels.

    1. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cars require far too much energy for batteries too, people are just too blinkered by green ideals to admit this. Until we have an order-of-magnitude increase in battery storage density electric cars are always going to be several compromises beyond being a practical solution to the problem of personal transport.

    2. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by Anaerin · · Score: 1

      However, at the moment, Hydrogen is difficult to store safely, and takes a huge amount of resources to make. Moreso than putting power into a battery. Aircraft (especially) already have huge surface areas upon which to put solar panels for power generation to augment a battery pack. Look at the "Solar Impulse" project.

    3. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by PopeScott · · Score: 1

      Ground transport is at least doable, if not great. Air transport OTOH is utterly hosed. Most people don't think of aircraft when we talk of this subject. It's at least if not more important piece of the subject.

    4. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydrogen also is produced from fossil fuels. Just because we can make it cleanly doesn't mean it will be done so until it is cheaper than squeezing out the last dregs from methane.

      It also leaks from any containment much faster than any other fuel. It is also potentially harmful to the ozone layer (free radicals of hydrogen produced by cosmic rays at the ozone layer can form water vapor which will fall, rather than stay in the oxygen-ozone-oxygen cycle). Hydrogen can also escape into interstellar space.

      The best thing to do would be to cleanly make long chain hydrocarbons from water and atmospheric CO2. This is exactly as clean and renewable as hydrogen. And hydrogen, because it is cheaper to make from fossil fuels, is exactly as clean and renewable as gasoline. The only differences are: hydrogen is MUCH harder to use safely, and it produces less "pollution" at the consumption level.

      I am all for clean fuel, but hydrogen is not it. I suggest elemental boron. Go on, read it and try not to say "wow, that would be perfect if we could get around to doing all that".

    5. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's partly true, but cars are also frequently underutilized. For most people, the median trip is under perhaps 20 miles, but a few trips are hundreds or thousands; for one person/one car, that long trip tends to make EVs impractical, but a family with 3 cars might reasonably replace one or even two with EVs.

      Planes are right out in any case, and ships and freight trucking are more-or-less fully utilized; there's no feasible way to replace them with a mixture of battery and fuel, because each vehicle needs full range.

    6. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by dragonsomnolent · · Score: 1

      Sure, planes may be right out, perhaps shipping too, but trucking? No way. I don't know how much more efficient it would be, but what about a system like they use in diesel locomotives, and in ships (engine turns generator, electricity from generator turns wheels). IIRC someone in Oklahoma started refitting cars with a similar system, Neil Young was one of his first customers (classic Lincoln, I think), claimed it got 100 miles to the gallon. Can't be arsed with a link right now, but this is slashdot, I'm sure someone can find it.

      --
      I got nuthin
    7. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by horza · · Score: 1

      You can use hydrogen in two different ways. You can burn it in an internal combustion engine instead of petrol, where both are around 25% efficient. Some cars you can work directly with hydrogen unmodified, others you can adapt.

      Or you can use the hydrogen in a fuel cell to power an EV. This gives incredibly high efficiency. The hydrogen and fuel cell are effectively your battery in the EV. We know it works as hydrogen fuel cell cars have been driving around for a decade. Getting them cost effective is the billion dollar battle, and that is the engineering problem.

      It currently looks like a dual market, battery for urban vehicles and hydrogen for longer range and commercial vehicles, but it only takes a breakthrough in either field to sweep the market.

      Phillip.

    8. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Graf Von Zeppelin seemed to think that aerial transportation using hydrogen was 'practical, as long as you don't need high speed.

    9. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's actually Wichita, Kansas. Here's the link:

      http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html

      That is utilizing conventional hydrocarbon liquid fuel in a much more efficient way than the traditional internal combustion engine. The energy/lb/ft^3 is magnitudes higher for gasoline/diesel than the most advanced battery system even in the R&D labs. Coupling a microturbine generator to a small battery/super-capacitor combo to drive an electric motor (high torque at low speeds) is perfect for driving. A normal gasoline engine only makes high torque at high speed - really only good for race cars.

      I'm hearing lots of news releases for hydrogen, but I'm not seeing any real leaps of engineering. Hydrogen requires either bulky, heavy, expensive, storage tanks, or it's chemically bound, requiring processing to release (slow). H2 fuel cells are barely controlled bombs, so those won't be allowed to run around loose in these terror stricken times. The only current way to generate the industrial quantities of hydrogen needed to run a fleet is to "crack" natural gas. Not too green.

      Hydrogen also tends to seep right through metal, causing embrittlement (it is the smallest molecule out there), so you can't store it long before it's gone. It has a HUGE range of combustion ratio with air, so a little leak or a huge leak will still go BOOM! A car fire is deadly hot now, but a H2 vehicle will explode and kill everyone around it. Good times.

      I used to be a real proponent of hydrogen, it really appealed with the simple "we can make it with solar hydrolysis" line. It's locked up in water, which is all around us. But I finally got hold of a book which actually pointed out the engineering difficulties, and dangers of it. These are real problems that aren't going away, and aren't being addressed. If someone comes up with a magic method of generation and safe storage, I'll be first in line. Until then, it's still the empty 50-year-old promise the marketing shills of the car and energy companies have been making. It's the old whore on the corner they trot out every couple of years in new makeup.

      If you want to look at a potential fuel that's all around us, but can be used without the billion dollar infrastructure of the energy companies, look at carbon monoxide. It's a proven technology (since WWII!) and can be created from any bio-waste feedstock: chunked wood, grass clippings, sewage, dead politicians, etc... Some of the "fringe science" enthusiasts call it Bingo fuel (rapid hydrolysis using a welding arc and carbon electrodes), but the gases are still carbon monoxide, H2, and water vapor. Thermal depolymerization is also a possible way of creating liquid hydrocarbons to replace natural oil (uses optimized pressure cooking process to simulate a million years of natures "hit-or-miss" process). Don't put too much hope in Hydrogen, but don't give up, either.

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    10. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Oh? I thought that boron fuels were fairly toxic, which is one of the reasons that they never caught on for aviation in the 50's.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    11. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by rocketPack · · Score: 1

      exactly as clean and renewable as gasoline

      Which is... not at all?

    12. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      The efficiency of any practical hydrogen fuel cell is also around 25%. That is why people just don't care about it. Not to say that it will last just a few years, and the "injection" system is quite unusual.

      Ok, the theoretical maximum efficiency is 100%, so it is a great research topic, but it just isn't viable right now.

    13. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by hrvatska · · Score: 1

      Sure, planes may be right out, perhaps shipping too, but trucking? No way. I don't know how much more efficient it would be, but what about a system like they use in diesel locomotives, and in ships (engine turns generator, electricity from generator turns wheels). IIRC someone in Oklahoma started refitting cars with a similar system, Neil Young was one of his first customers (classic Lincoln, I think), claimed it got 100 miles to the gallon. Can't be arsed with a link right now, but this is slashdot, I'm sure someone can find it.

      This is the system the Chevy Volt uses. It doesn't get anywhere near 100 mpg when running on gas instead of its battery. However, if you drive less than 40 miles on most days it doesn't use much gas either.

    14. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elemental boron is completely biologically inert and safe.

      Crystalline boron is inert chemically and is resistant to attack by boiling HF or HCl. When finely divided it is attacked slowly by hot concentrated nitric acid. Where people can breathe, boron is the fuel that will not burn. But when they provide combustors that immerse it in oxygen at lethally high purity and pressure, it becomes the fuel that burns there, and only there, only where it is meant to.

      Try reading the linked thingy.

    15. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Certainly you can go diesel-electric (though the more frequent stopping/starting and lower payload fraction makes the mass of the motor/generator pair more an issue), but your main energy store is still fuel, not batteries; you size your battery for regenerative braking. An oversized battery ala plugin-hybrid might get you the first 50 miles for free/cheap, but then you're hauling an empty battery (weighs the same as a full one) the rest of the day.

    16. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

      why bother? If all cars and trucks used something other than oil, then there is much much more oil available to planes, and at a much cheaper cost. Is that a perfect solution? No. But it's a great start. Besides, I'd wager that the amount of pollution put out by cars owned by the parts of civilization that can afford to migrate to a newer electric car is less than the amount of pollution put out by jets.

      So I say let's focus on one thing at a time.

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    17. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Yes, he also showed it was a great way to keep a large group of people warm.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    18. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. It depends on what you're doing with your car. If you're wanting to drive across the country on a road trip, then yes, EVs will not work for that. If you just want to commute 10 or 20 miles to work every day, then EVs will absolutely work fine for that, even with today's battery technology. Even distances of 40 miles each way are within reason, though distances much greater than that will either need better batteries, or a workplace that has a charger. Anyone commuting farther than 30 miles really needs to either move or get a new job anyway.

      The main problem is that most people want each of their vehicles to be able to serve for both purposes: commuting, and long-distance driving, even though many families have multiple vehicles these days. Higher fuel costs will change that attitude quickly.

    19. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      I don't understand the fixation on electric vehicles that require re-charging.

      IMO, Nuclear powered vehicles. Completely doable (ships / submarines for example) huge energy density, you can build them as "battery packs". and they last 14+ years before you need to recharge (replace the fuel).

      the biggest hurdles are power to weight ratio of the engine, it takes about 20kg of matter (& 0.9kg of fuel) to produce about 140W safely... if you had an array of 10 (200kg worth), then that's about half of the power output from your wall socket, in comparison the engine in your car weighs about the same and produces about 100x the amount of energy, it however can't do that for 14 years straight before you have to refuel.

      the fuel itself produces about 700W of thermal energy per kg for at least 14 years, its a matter of converting that energy into momentum efficiently. you can make the fuel run hotter, but that becomes more dangerous and the energy tapers off earlier.

    20. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by Arlet · · Score: 1

      Making them cost effective also means making fuel cells without platinum. There just isn't enough platinum in the world to make a billion fuel cells.

    21. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Half the people in the Hindenburg survived. How many survived the last airline crash? How warm does the jet fuel keep you? Modern aircraft are a big flying fuel tank that *cannot* go slow. A 747-400 takes almost 100T of fuel IIRC.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    22. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by SteveAyre · · Score: 1

      And of course now they're still around, using helium which is far safer. It's only the speed that's made planes the preferred option.

    23. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by justleavealonemmmkay · · Score: 1

      The Solar Impulse, however beautiful and amazing it is, is about as useful as a production aircraft as a sailplane. Probably worse actually as sailplanes are quite capable of flying in moderate upwind.

    24. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by sonamchauhan · · Score: 1

      [ I had a look -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse ]

      Well, no .. at least no to the "already have huge surface areas" bit.

      The first Solar Impulse has the wingspan of the Airbus A340 but can only carry one person in an un-pressurised cabin. The second edition has a pressurised cabin (still one person) but a wingspan bigger than an A380!

      It be interesting to calculate how much of a battery pack a Boeing 747 would need, and how much of that pack could be augmented with solar power in an 8-hour daylight trip across a clear desert sky. I'd go out on a limb and say "too much" and "not enough". Viable passenger aircraft that use solar power meaningfully will have to be newly designed, and will have massive wingspans.

    25. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by Internetuser1248 · · Score: 1

      hydrogen, because it is cheaper to make from fossil fuels, is exactly as clean and renewable as gasoline.

      Actually as it is produced at a thermal efficiency of ~50% (excluding storage and compression) it is far less clean and renewable than gasoline.

    26. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like there's enough to make that many Catalytic Converters, though.

    27. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has a HUGE range of combustion ratio with air, so a little leak or a huge leak will still go BOOM! A car fire is deadly hot now, but a H2 vehicle will explode and kill everyone around it. Good times.

      This is an extremely common misconception and is completely wrong. Hydrogen is lighter than air. It immediately goes up and is easily carried away with wind. Hydrogen is FAR, FAR, FAR safer from a vehicle perspective than is diesel or gas. This fact has been repeatedly proven in multiple studies.

      Factually, a car fire with hydrogen is a less catastrophic event than is on with gas. So technically, if safety is a concern, then hydrogen should be first on your list.

    28. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by slipangle · · Score: 1

      Start out with your zeppelin full of hydrogen. Feed the hydrogen into the fusion reactor to produce power to run the engines. Feed the resulting helium back into the gas cells to maintain buoyancy.

    29. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

      The only problem is that Hydrogen has more lifting potential than Helium. Doesn't mean it couldn't be made to work, but you can't just exchange Hydrogen with Helium and not make changes elsewhere (shedding weight, etc.)

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
    30. Re:Importance of Hydrogen by MJMullinII · · Score: 1

      While toxicity was an issue, (they were called "zip fuels") the main problem they could never overcome was the fouling of the engines by the boron-gunk left behind.

      During the 1970s, Northern-Pacific Railroad had a similar problem when they tried powering their extensive live of turbine-engined Freight Locomotives with Coal-slurry rather than fuel oil/diesel.

      --
      "Don't be a martyr -- BE THE ONE WHO GOT AWAY!"
  6. duh??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's an easy one, it's called water.

    1. Re:duh??? by Locutus · · Score: 1

      exactly, it's stored already in lots of places. It's both the storage and releasing of the hydrogen which is needed. I'll now go back to TFA and see if they address or it's another waste of a few million.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    2. Re:duh??? by Locutus · · Score: 1

      They talk about the releasing of hydrogen from the storage mechanism. But, there's one catch and that is that it currently requires platinum and it isn't cheap. So all they have to do is find another material which works besides platinum. that's all.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    3. Re:duh??? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Except that water is a lot heavier that hydrogen gas is. You're carrying around an additional ~16 grams per Mole and water itself is really difficult to compress.

      Unless the technology for electrolysis comes a long way in a very short period of time, water isn't likely to be a viable source of hydrogen for a fuel cell. Ethanol OTOH, has somewhat less extra mass per Mole of hydrogen, but has other downsides such as volatility and flammability.

    4. Re:duh??? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Didn't the legendary cold fusion experiment utilize platinum?

    5. Re:duh??? by Abreu · · Score: 2

      Palladium

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    6. Re:duh??? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Well no wonder no one could repeat the experiment; it took them the whole first night just to make their characters and character growth was so slow no one bothered past three sessions!

    7. Re:duh??? by Maritz · · Score: 1

      It utilized bollocks, which is relatively easy to come by, especially when you're the kind of scientist who skips straight to the press conference ;)

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  7. Inexpensively? by blair1q · · Score: 2

    "Platinum-doped activated-carbon lattice" is not the material that comes to mind when I think of "inexpensively".

    1. Re:Inexpensively? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? Hopefully your not talking about the platinum right? Do you know what doped means or how little is required?

    2. Re:Inexpensively? by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 2

      I guess that it is inexpensive if it works forever...

      A former employer has a solid state storage system for toxic gases that seems similar on the surface:
      SDS is a groundbreaking technology designed to reduce the hazards and environmental risks associated with transporting, storing, and delivering highly toxic gases. The SDS3 employs a novel nano-porous adsorbent to contain hazardous gases at sub atmospheric pressures. SDS houses toxic gases at sub-atmospheric pressure-virtually eliminating catastrophic releases while dramatically minimizing fabrication downtime.

      the system is delivered as stainless steel canisters with a metered connection on the top, not sure what 'magic' is going on inside... and it sure the heck was not inexpensive

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    3. Re:Inexpensively? by blair1q · · Score: 2

      Doped means it's a significant portion of the chemical stoichiometry of the assembly, when the assembly is essentially a massive-surface manifold. Which makes it a significant portion of the mass. And that stuff ain't cheap. And we're not talking $800 catalytic converter, here. This thing will have to be an appreciable portion of a cubic meter in size. And this implementation will create an enhanced demand for the commodity. Not less than kilodollars, just for your gas tank. And you don't get that savings back with simplified systems elsewhere in the vehicle, as you do with batteries.

    4. Re:Inexpensively? by Abreu · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah. But cars nowadays are designed to work for five-ten years more or less...

      --
      No sig for the moment.
    5. Re:Inexpensively? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Another case of a sensational spin added by the headline and summary, but not present in the linked article.

      FTFA:

      Sow-Hsin Chen, MIT professor emeritus in the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering and senior author of a paper describing the new method, says it should make it possible to increase the storage capacity of the activated carbon material by fine-tuning the size and concentrations of the particles of platinum and carbon. The team also hopes to identify a catalyst that isn't quite as expensive as platinum.

      Once the storage system has been tuned to achieve the desired capacity,* Chen says it should be capable of storing hydrogen under moderate pressure - possibly around 500 psi - and release the gas on demand by simply releasing the pressure. This is because when the hydrogen molecules are broken down into atoms using the spillover effect, they bind with the activated carbon with much less energy.

      [*emphasis mine]

      The researchers think this 'tuning' can be accomplished, and combined with finding a less expensive catalyst than platinum, this could be a game winner.

      Sometimes it pays to actually take the 30-60 seconds needed to RTFA to not appear to be going off half-cocked about something.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    6. Re:Inexpensively? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      So, you agree that they don't actually have a workable solution, and are just pimping for funding?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    7. Re:Inexpensively? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Taking the average mileage of vehicles (about 150,000 miles) and the average miles driven a year (12,000 miles) gives an average vehicle age of about 12.5 years. This is a vast improvement over vehicles of a few decades back when a car really was used up after about 60,000 miles. Could we build vehicles that had lifespans of decades and mileages in the multiple hundreds of thousands yes, and I would say that we currently do. I find that in general the longevity of a vehicle is more dependent on the care given to it than who made it. Examples would be my daily driver a 97 BMW 540i with 222,000 miles on it, or my new to me hunting vehicle a 96 Jeep Cherokee with 368,000 miles on it (someone loved this truck). Both of these vehicles run basically like new, don't burn oil, don't have strange smells, or have strange noises from the engine. Now for comparison there are my mother and step father's vehicles a 2002 Chevy Caviler and a 2007 Chevy Impala. The Caviler has just over 100,000 on it and may or may not start, has bad brakes, bad synchros in the transmission, and may or may not stay running when driving along with a lot of rust. The Impala still runs but already is developing rust problems and both vehicles burn a lot of oil (it is like they are fogging for mosquitoes). The main difference is the maintenance given to these vehicles, mine get all of the standard service at or before it is required, my mom and step dad's vehicles get it eventually, they have gone 10,000-15,000 miles between oil changes (they use standard 3000 mile interval mineral oil not extended drain synthetic) and have run vehicles that are 2 or 3 quarts low on oil.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    8. Re:Inexpensively? by Auntiegrav · · Score: 1

      LOL, yeah. :-) Acetylene is what comes to my mind. Wait until someone drops one of these things on a concrete floor when it is fully charged. oops. What were they working on at that smoking hole?

    9. Re:Inexpensively? by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Doped means it's a significant portion of the chemical stoichiometry of the assembly

      Where can you find this definition of doped?

    10. Re:Inexpensively? by fnj · · Score: 1

      I imagine the catalyst would be recycled just as as it is from millions of automobile catalytic converters per year.

    11. Re:Inexpensively? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the catalytic converter in your car.

    12. Re:Inexpensively? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      It's not a definition, it's an answer to the question that was asked. I didn't find it, I derived it from the description of the process and structure.

      This isn't the same doping you find in semiconductor technology, where only a tiny fraction of the total thickness of the substrate wafer gets infused with other elements. But even there, if you consider the rest of the substrate to be nothing more than mechanical support, or consider thin-film semiconductors, where it literally is nothing but mechanical support, then the doping does become an appreciable portion of the mass of the active layer. Spread the dopant atoms too far out, and the quantum lattice does not set up for avalanche to occur when the right charge is injected, so all you have is a lossy conductor. (Still wondering if I know what doping means?)

      In order for these folks' doping to have any effect, it's going to have to put doping atoms near most of the other atoms on the crumpled 2-dimensional matrix, so as to create the pattern of energy wells into which these hydrogen atoms will fall. And in order for it to be reasonably more efficient than just pressurizing the hydrogen to liquefy it at room temperature would be, those wells will have to be very close together. Lots and lots of heavy atoms of Pt in amongst lots and lots of light atoms of C and H. Up to half the mass of the substance, altogether. If it's even a quarter of it, you're talking hundreds if not thousands of grams of Platinum in every tank.

      And that stuff ain't made of sand and chemical byproducts. It's Platinum. Typically more expensive than Gold. Though these days Gold is something of a commodities-speculation rock star, so it could be inverted.

  8. An easy solution by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I know an easy way to store hydrogen safely at room temperature: make a chain of carbon atoms, then join hydrogen atoms in the leftover "slots".

    Seriously, the whole idea of "hydrogen economy" is simply stupid. It's not going to do anyone any good unless you have a power source to produce the hydrogen; and if you have said power source, it really isn't that hard to crack carbon dioxide and water to produce hydrocarbons rather than just water to produce hydrogen. Either produces carbon-neutral fuel, but hydrocarbons are far safer to store and use and hold more energy per mass or volume unit. Hydrocarbons also have the advantage of being compatible with existing vehicles and distribution network, being another name for oil.

    The final nail in the coffin of hydrogen is that biofuels are hydrocarbons. That's understandable, since biofuel projects are simply trying to mimic, hasten and optimize the same processes that formed oil in the first place. However, that means that a hydrogen-burning vehicle can't use biofuels, at least not without losing massive amounts of efficiency.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    1. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally I see that there is at least one other person in the world that understands that hydrogen is an energy storage medium and not an energy source.

    2. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a fuel. For every 10 parts of energy used to create free hydrogen, 1 part is returned when recombining it with hydrogen. Even corn ethanol fares better at 8:1.

    3. Re:An easy solution by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Even easier: put it in a blimp ;)

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    4. Re:An easy solution by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "However, that means that a hydrogen-burning vehicle can't use biofuels, at least not without losing massive amounts of efficiency."

      If your powerplant is a turbine that trims-to-temperature it can efficiently burn both and mixtures thereof. Capstone turbine-powered hybrid buses work just fine, and other turbine styles can do it too.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    5. Re:An easy solution by timothyf · · Score: 2

      As has been noted elsewhere, hydrogen fuel cells are very efficient at converting hydrogen back into energy (around 75%). Is there anything comparable for hydrocarbons? Today's engines are only around 20% efficient at doing that.

    6. Re:An easy solution by horza · · Score: 1

      How is this modded '+4 Insightful'? It's not that hard to create cheap simulated oil from CO2 and water? What crackpot modded this up? Not being able to burn the statistically insignificant amount of biofuels is a nail in hydrogen's coffin? And the killer line that burning biofuels in a hydrogen engine will be massively inefficient... the whole combustion engine is massively inefficient hence moving to fuel cell technology that bumps efficiency up from 25% in an IC to currently around 60% for fuel cell. Oh plus you don't lose energy idling or through a transmission.

      Slashdot really has gone to the dogs.

      Phillip.

    7. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "It's not going to do anyone any good unless you have a power source to produce the hydrogen" - the current search is for hydrogen production methods that don't use large amounts of energy. If found, this would make the hydrogen economy extremely attractive, and there are some promising chemical advances in this area that just need to be made commercially viable.

      Agreed, hydrocarbons are great for storage , but if you burn them you get all the particulate and nox sox etc, so combustion engines really aren't the way to go - you'd be solving the energy problem but not all the other issues of health and pollution. Using hydrocarbons in fuel cell driven cars would be much cleaner - you just get exhaust of co2 and water, no particulates/nox/sox. And that could be carbon neutral if it doesn't come from oil/gas.

    8. Re:An easy solution by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 2

      You seem to be ignoring the output of burned hydro carbons, namely carbon dioxide

      The true hydrogen fanbois are looking forward to fuel cells that provide a portable power source that has no CO2 emissions. That is no easy bill to fill, so I at least can understand their joy at finding a way to transport hydrogen safely since it has been one of the major red herrings in the push to use fuel cells

      As far as a higher cost to produce Hydrogen goes... the key words are portable and non-portable. Non-portable power sources (nuclear, I'm looking at you) can be used to break out the hydrogen, which can then be used (via this new 'gas' tank) to power a portable device like a fuel cell.

      Would I rather have a 'Mr Fusion' to power my vehicle? you betcha, but the idea of finally delivering a practical hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle is frankly exciting

      --
      Wherever You Go, There You Are
    9. Re:An easy solution by horza · · Score: 2

      What do you think petrol is?

      Phillip.

    10. Re:An easy solution by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2

      True, but we're not the ones who are putting the energy into the petrol, so other than all the bad side-effects, it's a win for us. Less so as we have to spend more and more energy getting useful petrol, though.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    11. Re:An easy solution by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      Way to miss the GP's point. It doesn't matter if an engine burns hydrocarbons and emits carbon dioxide into the atmosphere if that carbon dioxide came from the atmosphere to begin with.

      Unlike traditional pollutants, nobody cares about a little carbon dioxide output at any given point, because it's nothing next to what's already floating around in the air.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    12. Re:An easy solution by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

      Talked to anyone actually doing research on fuel cells? I have. To keep the temperatures down in a "safe" range, the power output isn't much. Kick the power output to a usable level, like to run a drive motor, and now you're carting around a bomb. It's a barely controlled reaction (reaction = explosion).

      Internal combustion motors aren't that efficient, micro-turbine generators are loud but better, and both are comparatively safe/inexpensive.

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    13. Re:An easy solution by FlyingGuy · · Score: 1

      Hmmm lets see... 200 plus million years to sequester all that CO2 and we have released, at least by some estimates over 50% of it in a little over 200 hundred years...

      Nope, no effect at all. Move along, nothing to see here.

      --
      Hey KID! Yeah you, get the fuck off my lawn!
    14. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, there is something pretty much identical for hydrocarbons, hydrocarbon fuel cells. There has been more work done on hydrogen fuel cells, and they would need to make the hydrocarbons relatively "clean", but it would work as well. People focus on hydrogen because of the bullshit about its only output being water vapor. (Most of the time they manipulate hydrocarbons to extract the hydrogen if they are trying to make it cheap.)

    15. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As has been noted elsewhere, hydrogen fuel cells are very efficient at converting hydrogen back into energy (around 75%). Is there anything comparable for hydrocarbons? Today's engines are only around 20% efficient at doing that.

      Can I get a source on that figure? Last I read, fuel cells max out at 50% efficiency and most are closer to 38%.

    16. Re:An easy solution by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Petroleum is an energy source, not an energy storage medium like hydrogen. The difference is small, but extremely significant: to get hydrogen, you have to create it from other sources (such as electrolysis of water), and that requires a LOT of energy. You get some of that energy back when you burn that hydrogen, but not all; it's a net negative.

      Petroleum, OTOH, doesn't have to be created at all, because that's already been done for us by millions of years of time of geological processes. So all we have to do is drill a hole and pump it out, and it's nearly ready to use (after refining). The amount of energy you get from burning it is much more than what you expend in extraction and refining, so it's a net positive. Of course, the supply of this convenient energy source is limited, and that's a problem.

      So theoretically, you could get all your society's energy needs from petroleum; you pump it out of the ground and then burn it to make all the power you need, for both vehicles and for land-based electricity. You can't do that with hydrogen; you have to get the energy to make it from somewhere else, such as burning oil.

    17. Re:An easy solution by AgentGibbled · · Score: 1

      It's a barely controlled reaction (reaction = explosion).

      You *do* know what goes on inside an internal combustion engine, right?

    18. Re:An easy solution by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Oh plus you don't lose energy idling or through a transmission.

      You don't have to lose energy idling with an ICE either; there's engines now that automatically shut down instead of idling, and instantly restart when the throttle is pressed. They generally require a sizable electric motor though, so you usually only see this with hybrid-electric vehicles.

      There's no way around the transmission though, but to be fair, most pure-electric vehicle designs also have a transmission (with 1 or 2 speeds), because electric motors tend to spin pretty fast compared to the speed of car wheels. You could design a motor matched to the wheel speed of a car, but this usually ends up being problematic in other areas (impractical size, etc.).

    19. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mised the point , missed the point, missed the whole goddam point.

      learn to read, you illiterate clod.

    20. Re:An easy solution by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Internal combustion motors aren't that efficient, micro-turbine generators are loud but better

      They are? They must not be anything like regular gas turbines, because those things are horribly inefficient (much less efficient than any piston engine).

    21. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The speed of an electric motor is controller by the number of poles and the frequency. There is a washing machine built by a New Zealand company Fisher and Paykel it used a special "smart drive motor" that had no gear box. IE no transmission and was able to carry out all the various speed functions required of a washing machine.

    22. Re:An easy solution by rts008 · · Score: 1

      When your hydrocarbon fuel has the same emission characteristics as hydrogen fuel, then I will pay attention to your sales pitch. Until then, hydrocarbon fuel emissions are a deal breaker for me.

      As I see it, the two major problems with hydrocarbon fuels (petroleum based), are emissions, and conflict/war over petroleum deposits.

      Your cracking CO2 and H2O, and/or bio-fuels, only addresses the conflict/wars over deposits, and thumbs it's nose at the emissions issue.
      No thanks, not a viable solution to me.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    23. Re:An easy solution by kvezach · · Score: 1

      Let's try that again. The original poster's point is that if you want a Magical Zero-Emissions Hydrogen Storage System, you just take the hydrogen you were to use, combine it with carbon (from CO2 from the air), then ship your hydrocarbon around. The guy at the other end then burns the stuff and the CO2 you used is released back into the air. Voila, zero emissions.

      (I still think sodium or lithium borohydride would be a better reversible energy carrier, as it has a greater energy density than gasoline and can be easily used in direct borohydride fuel cells, but first they have to get the "recharging" working at better than 10% efficiency.)

    24. Re:An easy solution by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Emissions = Hitler. Can you list them? If the word "carbon" appears anywhere in a list of emissions from a fuel produced by cracking atmospheric CO2, then please don't bother.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    25. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the mentioned "spillover effect" used in this hydrogen storage device to split H2 molecules into H atoms could also split hydrocarbon molecules into atoms, thus allowing us to avoid producing CO2? Carbon atoms from hydrocarbon molecules could become attached to the carbon lattice permanently.

    26. Re:An easy solution by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      You read the comment, but you missed the point. The hydrogen has to come from somewhere. If you're going to use a turbine anyway, then there is absolutely zero benefit from using hydrogen as opposed to fuel oil, while meanwhile there are numerous massive drawbacks. The only way it makes sense to use hydrogen is if you're going to use a fuel cell, and that idea has yet to be proven to have any practical merit. As long as fuel cell production is an energy intensive process, and their recycling as well (take into consideration mining and refining the raw materials which eventually become the fuel cell, please, and either capturing or cleaning all the emissions) they are a non-starter in terms of ecological benefit.

      In theory we could use excess nighttime base load to produce some hydrogen, but we aren't actually even doing that. Virtually all of our hydrogen comes from cracking natural gas in a process which is itself energy-intensive.

      Hydrogen is a boondoggle on the same order as non-cellulosic ethanol.

      We could be making biodiesel from algae using technology developed and proven by the USDOE at Sandia NREL in the 1980s. As well, we could be using this same technology to simultaneously capture up to 80% of the CO2 output of coal- and oil-fired power plants, which also increases algae production. Aviation fuels based on biodiesel have already been successfully tested. As a road fuel it is already common. Virtually all of the energy for the process comes from the sun; even the biodiesel production can be done with a combination of direct solar thermal (black tanks with solar reflectors for reactor heating) and PV solar (for mixing engines.) Thin-film PV panels which last ten to twenty years pay back the energy cost of their production in three. This is a path that makes sense using already proven technology which could produce immediate profit in the middle of the desert using dirty salt water. What year is it?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    27. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok lemme sort this out for you. Cheap oil is going away. There's actually quite a lot of expensive oil out there, like in tarsands and beneath the ocean. At that pricepoint coal liquification, biofuel, batteries, and all sorts of other schemes are competitive with oil. One such scheme is the grandparent's idea was to take carbon dioxide and turn it into oil. That would require a lot of energy. So while we weren't the ones to place the energy into the "petrol" we're using today, that's what we would have to do in the future.

      We're planning for the future, and you're saying "but things are ok right now". That's not the wisest because the oil economy IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.

    28. Re:An easy solution by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Unless I am driving a diesel I sure hope my fuel isn't detonating (exploding) in the combustion chamber. I much prefer the very rapid deflagration that should be happening if I am driving a non diesel engine.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    29. Re:An easy solution by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Concerning efficiency the best reciprocating piston engines get just over 50% but those are large 2 stroke marine diesels. Large combined cycle gas turbine can get just of 60% efficiency so they are more efficient than a reciprocating piston engine but you are dealing with something the size of a building. The marine diesels are also the size of a building too and will have bores and strokes measured in meters (typically in the range of 1-2 meters).

      --
      Time to offend someone
    30. Re:An easy solution by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's fine for speed, but what about torque? You can put all the poles you want in a motor, but you're not going to get, say, 2000 lb-ft of torque out of a 9" diameter motor just by putting a lot of poles in. Cars need lots of torque, and transmissions provide that by multiplying torque (in exchange for speed).

    31. Re:An easy solution by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I was thinking of aviation engines, which are quite a bit smaller. There, piston engines always get better efficiency, but they don't have the same power-to-weight ratio, so smaller aircraft almost always have piston engines while the big ones have turbines. But small turbines do exist, and sometimes people use them in experimental craft, but the fuel consumption is always several times higher than the avgas engines. I think at least one of the small airplane makers (Cessna?) is even working on a diesel-engine airplane now, though it would run on JetA fuel since you can't get normal diesel fuel at airports.

    32. Re:An easy solution by black+soap · · Score: 1

      A low explosive is still an explosive. Detonation or supersonic shock wave is a symptom of a high explosive. A rapid deflagration can still be an explosion.

    33. Re:An easy solution by black+soap · · Score: 1

      Many washing machines have direct drive (no transmission gearing). The different parts of the wash cycle sound very different, as the motor speed varies.

    34. Re:An easy solution by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      Nuclear is portable (it's used on military ships), just not at an individual automobile level. :)

    35. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but the fuel consumption is always several times higher than the avgas engines.

      That's because, contrary to the misinformation spread in this thread, turbines are extremely inefficient at sea level. Turbines used in aircraft at only efficient at high altitude because the air is thin. This works because it means less resistance on the aircraft itself and because the engine can use less fuel in the thinner air. Add to that the massive benefit of the power to weight ratios and lower maintenace of turbines, all of which are important for aviation, its a no-brainer for planes. As you get closer to the sea level, turbine efficiency decreases. At sea level, a piston engine will always win against a turbine; especially, by far, if its made to the same tolerances. Which basically means, given the same sunk costs, there absolutely is no comparison between a piston and turbine at sea level. Without fail, a piston engine wins.

      I'll also point out that turbines have previously been used in cars. They were epic failures at noise, heat, and poor economy. And that ignores the fact that jet engines can only ever run at peak efficiency when running at high RPM with little to no variation in speed. Which basically means, the average operating environment for cars translates to about worst case efficiency for a turbine.

    36. Re:An easy solution by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      At sea level, a piston engine will always win against a turbine; especially, by far, if its made to the same tolerances. Which basically means, given the same sunk costs, there absolutely is no comparison between a piston and turbine at sea level. Without fail, a piston engine wins.

      So basically they suck on Cessnas because Cessnas fly at relatively low altitudes, whereas 737s fly at 35000 ft?

      I'll also point out that turbines have previously been used in cars. They were epic failures at noise, heat, and poor economy. And that ignores the fact that jet engines can only ever run at peak efficiency when running at high RPM with little to no variation in speed. Which basically means, the average operating environment for cars translates to about worst case efficiency for a turbine.

      Yes, but back when they tried them before, they hadn't yet invented hybrid-electric powertrains. A series hybrid powertrain would eliminate this problem; run the engine at peak efficiency constantly to run a generator, and use the power generated to drive electric motors. Of course, this doesn't help the poor-efficiency-at-sea-level problem, which is still a deal-breaker. A small diesel engine would make more sense.

    37. Re:An easy solution by Anomalyst · · Score: 1

      Any URL to the relevant algae-based biodiesel production?

      --
      There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
    38. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      turbines are very efficient if the use heat recovery, not if not. Capstone turbines do use heat recovery, ie using the hot exhaust to heat the fresh air after the compressor stage.

    39. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically they suck on Cessnas because Cessnas fly at relatively low altitudes, whereas 737s fly at 35000 ft?

      Yes. The primary advantage of a turbine on something like a Cessna is useful load. Which is why, primarily, they are used in places like Alaska where useful load (remember, previous mention of power:weight ratio) is more important than economy. In places like Alaska, planes are their trucks. That's also why in spite of being around for ages, you rarely see them as a retrofit. Basically, the operating environment and operational requirements for planes have nothing to do with ground vehicles.

      Yes, but back when they tried them before, they hadn't yet invented hybrid-electric powertrains. A series hybrid powertrain would eliminate this problem; run the engine at peak efficiency constantly to run a generator, and use the power generated to drive electric motors. Of course, this doesn't help the poor-efficiency-at-sea-level problem, which is still a deal-breaker. A small diesel engine would make more sense.

      Agreed, but you still wind up with lots of noise, shitty economy, and tons of heat. None of which are advantages for a car. Long story short, turbines in cars are exceedingly stupid ideas to wit it has been repeatedly proven. Even worse, the micro-turbines have even worse thermal efficiency and make economy even worse. There is nothing good about the idea of turbines in a car unless your plan is to lower dramatically lower O2 and and/or atmospheric pressure at sea level.

      If you look, you'll find there are good reasons why diesel-electric is wildly popular for trains, ships, and submarines, but turbines, while not entirely unheard of, are generally shunned. Again, its a well known fact, short of some miraculous new turbine technology, people speaking of turbines in cars are generally ignorant and best and idiots are worst.

    40. Re:An easy solution by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      You've misunderstood me pretty badly, I think. I'd rather stop pumping, refining, and using petroleum altogether, even if it were plentiful. And I'm all about using what cheap energy we've got left to bootstrap ourselves to something sustainable and abundant while we can, rather than waiting until later, which will be harder, and may be too late.

      The bad side effects that I glossed over before?; They're actually very bad and very expansive to the point of making petrol a bad idea no matter what. Petrol is only okay other than that. (Kind of like 'Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?')

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    41. Re:An easy solution by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24190.pdf has all the relevant figures and conclusions.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:An easy solution by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but you still wind up with lots of noise, shitty economy, and tons of heat.

      Yeah, I was just saying that if the fact that turbines suck at variable loads (basically they like to run at full speed all the time for best efficiency, and don't change speeds that quickly) were the only problem with them in cars, that would be easily solved by using them in a series hybrid arrangement.

      Even worse, the micro-turbines have even worse thermal efficiency and make economy even worse.

      What about those Capstone micro-turbines that another poster here mentioned, which recycle their waste heat? If that lives up to its promises, then that might actually be real competition for diesels.

      Of course, it seems like I hear about at least one new wonderful engine technology or design every year, and it never does pan out. Even in the piston-engine realm, people have been making "breakthrough" new piston engine designs for decades, that diverges from the traditional inline or V-style arrangement, and every single time there's a bunch of hype briefly, and then you never heard about it again. Googling "new engine design" shows a ton of them: the "wave disk engine" from Michigan State, a 6-cycle engine using steam from Bruce Crower (of Crower Cams), a design from Eco Motors, the Split-Cycle engine from Scuderi, there's tons more. The only alternative design to go anywhere was the (over 50-year-old; first patented in 1929, first working prototype in 1957) Wankel rotary engine, and even that never did well because it has crummy fuel economy (even in the latest incarnation in the RX-8).

    43. Re:An easy solution by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      JetA and diesel are more similar than diesel and gasoline so I don't think it would take much modification. The great thing about diesels is that they can run on almost anything combustible much like turbines will.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    44. Re:An easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Opps - forgot to mention. The other advantage of a turbine in places like Alaska is that getting fuel is far easier while retaining small field capability. AVGAS is hard to come in some places whereas diesel and jet fuel (which is basically kerosine plus additives which lower its freeze point and slightly cleaner combustion; but most turbines can burn diesel too) is typically far, far easier to obtain. Short field performance (generally much shorter compared to your typical turbofan and/or turboprop) combined with greater useful load and readily available fuels make for a powerful argument when its your primary mode of heavy lifting.

      All this combined, which is why for short hops pistol planes typically do faster and less expensive than turbprops - because of the flight profile - when discussing passenger service. In some cases, piston is even a win for cargo. Generally the distances need to be 600 miles or less. Over that, the flight profile allows for turbines to win back the efficiency losses (making for steep climb and dive flight profiles - and longer cruise and high altitude). Not to mention, piston planes generally have far more airport options which means it can frequently save on both time and gas versus extended drives required by use of centralized hubs.

      Its proven for short hops 600nm, the combination of centralized hubs and turbines have increased fuel demand. It we as a country were serious about reducing fuel/oil consumption, we would make big changes to the FAA and actively encourage more piston travel; which would also reduce congestion (saving time and fuel) as well as make air travel safer yet.

      Yes, its proven the FAA actually makes air travel more dangerous and needlessly more expensive. The FAA nor the airlines will ever admit it, but the airlines have almost absolute control over the FAA and they prevent fair market competition in the aviation sector; which is especially true for non-commercial air travel. The only thing which prevents the FAA from being puppet government for the airlines is that Congress maintains control; to wit the airlines+lobbyists actively attempted to wrestle control away just a two year back. And they keep trying undue the guise of funding. When you hear of FAA funding issues, the root cause is almost always airlines+lobbyists in a bid to size control of the FAA.

    45. Re:An easy solution by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      The technology that was used in those early Chrysler turbine cars is the direct ancestor of the turbine engine in the M1A1 Abrams tanks that our military is using.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    46. Re:An easy solution by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Turbines can be efficient at or near sea level, (look at those combined cycle gas turbines in a power plant), but if you are designing something that will normally operate at 30,000 to 40,000 feet then it makes sense that that is where you would design it to run most efficiently. Have you ever driven a car up to the top of Pikes Peak or Mt. Evans in Colorado, they don't run very well and if you have an older one with a carburetor then you probably needed to get out and adjust it.

      You are correct in that turbines were tried in cars. They never made it out of a prototype phase and it was Chrysler that made them. At the time they did have problems with noise but it was the noise they made not the amount (have you ever heard an old American V8 with lumpy cams) but this wasn't something killed them. Initially when they were designed they had to use new expensive/exotic materials (titanium and some early super-alloys ) to handle the temps. They would run on any combustible liquid, but did take some time to warm up. The most problematic issue was the throttle lag which no one likes since when I push down on the pedal I want to go now not is a second, this is still a problem in the world of turbo chargers. If I remember correctly there was a Modern Marvels episode on the history channel that featured one which is where some of this info comes from. Despite the current perception (probably deserved) that Chrysler Corp. vehicles are junk there was a time when they were known as very high quality, very engineering oriented car company.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    47. Re:An easy solution by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yes, and fuel consumption is a major problem with that engine.

    48. Re:An easy solution by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

      (Kind of like 'Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?')

      Considering how often she berated and emotionally abused poor Abraham, Mrs Lincoln was probably secretly relieved by her husband's death. ;)

      --
      'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  9. Oh teh humanity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy. Just build a huge dirigible to keep it in.

    Might want to stay away from New Jersey with it, however.

    1. Re:Oh teh humanity! by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Easy. Just build a huge dirigible to keep it in.

      Might want to stay away from New Jersey with it, however.

      You should stay away from New Jersey in general.

  10. brings back memories.. by lazn · · Score: 1

    Storing Hydrogen in Carbon brings back memories of this: http://slashdot.org/~GMontag/journal/22583 :D

  11. Sure. After all, Platinum now costs less than Gold by tp1024 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    At least it did this morning. Might have changed until now. However, quote:

    Sow-Hsin Chen, MIT professor emeritus in the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering and senior author of a paper describing the new method, says it should make it possible to increase the storage capacity of the activated carbon material by fine-tuning the size and concentrations of the particles of platinum and carbon. The team also hopes to identify a catalyst that isn't quite as expensive as platinum.

    So who the hell approved a story that says "Now an MIT-led research team has demonstrated a method that could allow hydrogen to be stored inexpensively at room temperature." If you follow the link it says that a way to inexpensively store hydrogen at room temperature is exactly what they haven't found.

  12. Dihydrogen monoxide is the answer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a large quantity of hydrogen at room temperature on my desk right now.

    --Oops, I just drank the rest of my water.

    1. Re:Dihydrogen monoxide is the answer by reasterling · · Score: 1

      Trisolian Guard: "You just drank our emperor. What is your name?"

      Anonymous Coward: "Anonymous Coward."

      Trisolian Guard: "All hail emperor ... uh ... Anonymous Coward."

      --
      "For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice" -- God
  13. What happens when the tank is punctured? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The internal pressure is ~4 atm and hydrogen is released when the pressure decreases.

    I'm sure Chen asked himself whatcanpossiblygowrong, but did he find a way to mitigate it?

  14. Did Anyone Read the Summary by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    And think they invented a balloon?

    Yes yes I know hydrogen atoms will slip through the pores in the latex. And also react violently if set on fire. And stuff. But you could celebrate your "invention" with colorful hydrogen storage devices!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  15. The answer is simple. by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 0

    The best way of storing hydrogen at room temperature is to combine it with carbon.

  16. Hear, hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well said.

  17. what the heck happened to Millennium cell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sodium Borohydride + catalyst. They had working stuff in 2003. low pressure, safe storage and transport, reasonably good energy density. Or course it all comes back to the fact we have no cheap way to generate hydrogen. http://gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/hydrogen_workshop/Wu.pdf

  18. Re:Sure. After all, Platinum now costs less than G by horza · · Score: 1

    The same editor that lied about a French nuclear leak?

    Phillip.

  19. Inexpensive? Bullshit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In this experimental set-up, there is a nearly 1:1 ratio of Pt atoms to dissociated H atoms. Plus lots of carbon matrix. Overall, low hydrogen storage density, combined with *extremely* high cost.

    Still interesting from a physical chemistry standpoint, but certainly not anything even remotely suitable for practical deployment.

  20. Re:Sure. After all, Platinum now costs less than G by tp1024 · · Score: 1

    Then I would surely like to retract the statement I made back then. Because once can be a mistake, twice starts to look suspicious. There are limits to far one can grant people the benefit of the doubt. This limit has now been reached. (And will certainly be broken if/when this happens again.)

  21. This type of thing is not new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    United Nuclear has a working hydride solution (except the government freaked out and blocked them):

    switch to hydrogen

    Simple, low pressure tanks that use heat/cold to release/store the hydrogen....

  22. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the major stumbling block is that it's not an energy source?

  23. Inexpensively. by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Not if it's used only in small quantities. We are talking about nanoscale here. Like the gold in chips doesn't make them expensive.

  24. Ozone layer holes by pr0f3550r · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is important and significant because Hydrogen is very bad for the Ozone layer. Loose hydrogen is so light that it attempts to leave earth and settles in the upper layers of the heterosphere or is whisked off into space. However, many molecules of H2 never make it that far because they are very reactive in the presence of ozone. Research from Caltech indicates that Hydrogen In the upper atmosphere they can easily turn to H2O and produce the harmful presence of upper atmosphere water. Eventually this will fall back to earth but it will have unintended consequences as H2 is ozone depleting and water is an inhibitor to ozone creation.

    http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2003/06/59220

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/h010v9w83l8j3441/

    1. Re:Ozone layer holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll just fix that with a Hydrogen tax.

  25. Combine it with Carbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is an old solution to the storage and dispensing problem. Combine it with Carbon and turn the Hydrogen into a liquid at room temperature.

  26. You're wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fuel cell will run cooler than an internal combustion gasoline engine, since the cell is more efficient (75% vs 20%). So your objection is only a red herring.

    1. Re:You're wrong by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      A fuel cell will create less heat as a by-product, but that doesn't mean the parts of the engine are running at a cooler temperature (e.g., you could have a very hot, but very well insulated engine that releases very little heat).

    2. Re:You're wrong by Olorion · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to assume non-stupid engineering. If there are local hot spots in a fuel cell, we have any number of ways to move out the excess heat. At the very minimum, we can do what was done in your gasoline car: we can put a honking big radiator next to the engine.

      Such ugly measures probably won't be necessary, simply because there is a lot less overall heat to worry about. So yes, a fuel cell should run much cooler, per watt of output power, than an engine that uses gasoline explosions.

    3. Re:You're wrong by kmac06 · · Score: 1

      The *external* part of the fuel cell should run much cooler, but the internal part may need to be quite hot, in order to work at high efficiency.

    4. Re:You're wrong by Olorion · · Score: 1

      If the overall fuel cell is cool, then the local hot spot is either quite small or not very hot. Either case is easy to handle. As I said, you have to assume non-stupid engineering.

  27. Jumping to conclusions? by Olorion · · Score: 1
    [An inexpensive storage method] is exactly what they haven't found

    You are jumping to conclusions, aren't you? The expense of Chen's method depends on how much platinum he uses. Without knowing the quantity, you can't conclude that his method is costly.

    1. Re:Jumping to conclusions? by LordWabbit2 · · Score: 1

      The very fact that it uses platinum at all makes it costly - regardless of the amount. There is very little platinum in catalytic converters but that does not stop people from stealing them off of cars/trucks. At the time of writing this platinum was selling at 1761.00 a troy ounce.

      --
      There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
    2. Re:Jumping to conclusions? by BlueMonk · · Score: 1

      After reading the article, it seemed to me like this was a proof of concept and they're still working (optimistically) on finding a cheaper substitute for the platinum.

  28. These guys already store it in pill-shape by Plammox · · Score: 1

    The company Amminex have invented a technology that can store ammonia (for NOx emission filters, which is their primary business now). They claim this also enables solid hydrogen storage. Indeed, this was their primary research goal. The emission filter business apparently just happened to pick up on one of their side products.

  29. Where's my award? by villain222 · · Score: 1

    I store hydrogen at room temperature all the time. Especially after i eat some chili. FARTGAS!!!!

  30. Carbonized chicken feathers by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    They already found out 2 years ago that readily available chicken feathers, when carbonized, make perfect carbon nanotubes to store hydrogen. I wonder if using platinum doping with that will have more benefits than costs associated to it. See http://www.greenoptimistic.com/2009/06/25/carbonized-chicken-feathers-hydrogen-storage/ for details on the feathers.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
  31. Re:An easIER solution by WileyC · · Score: 0

    I store hydrogen at room temperature all the time. My method is stable, simple and has no possibilities of explosion. The only trick is to get it away from the oxygen molecules when you need to use it.

    --

    /// Not a super-genius . . . yet. ///

  32. the materials needed are... by manofherb · · Score: 1

    Carbon fiber, Bisphenol A & B, and a catalyst wet the carbon fiber with the resin, and wrap it around a cylinder I've made thousands of Hydrogen storage tanks at my job, they operate in the 10,000 psi range, I could tell you what they burst at, but it may be a trade secret let's just say it's high enough that you won't have to worry, your valves and o-rings will fail before the tank itself production is not an issue, we can ramp up to do thousands of these easily enough, the process for building these has been streamlined and made ready for mass production, our only issue is we need someone to utilize them....instead of wasting their time with this fuel cell jibjab

    1. Re:the materials needed are... by manofherb · · Score: 1

      just read the article and would like to add that our tanks are not heavy, they check in at about 30 lbs empty

    2. Re:the materials needed are... by Auntiegrav · · Score: 1

      How many cu ft of hyd storage do your 30lb tanks provide?

  33. Leeloo says, of Boron, by DarthStrydre · · Score: 1

    BIG badaboom!

  34. So basically by black+soap · · Score: 1

    They are trying to find something that Hydrogen dissolves into for better storage density at low pressure than pure hydrogen? The same way acetylene is stored dissolved in acetone? (Acetylene will auto-react at relatively low pressures, so it can't just be shoved into a bottle the way propane can.) Rather than a solid, can someone refresh my memory on what liquids Hydrogen can dissolve in?

    Also, the points about just combining the hydrogen with carbon are valid - for use with current production/storage/usage methods, i.e. the whole fucking system we currently use.

    Finally, I will take this opportunity to point out again that when talking about alternative fuels, it is much easier/cheaper/more efficient to produce diesel substitutes than to produce gasoline substitutes. Ethanol fuel from corn is a scam, (bio)diesel is the future.

  35. But can they actually make one? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    ...and make it economically? The scientists are conjecturing, based on observations from an inelastic neutron scattering experiment on activated carbon coated with a platinum catalyst, that a low pressure H2 storage system could be developed, but seem to acknowledge that it would be expensive. If they'd actually constructed a storage device, I might be less cynical, but this seems to be another case of the theoretically possible being interesting but not economically feasible. From the article:

    The team also hopes to identify a catalyst that isn't quite as expensive as platinum.

    For what it is worth, a similar low pressure system using rhodium to bind hydrogen was conjectured half a dozen years ago, but I can't find evidence that a working prototype ever emerged. Using a platinum catalyst is an expensive way to bind hydrogen. I remember enough chemistry to know that the platinum group of elements (ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, osmium, iridium, and platinum) all have similar hydrogen binding abilities, but all seem to be fairly expensive to produce in commercial quantities.

  36. Not hard: it's already being done, globally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's called the welding industry: millions of metal cylinders moving about the place...they're being sold, used and refilled all the time. Call your local Airgas company; have them send hydrogen cylinders over. Tell'em Randy (the manager at the Evansville store sent you.)

    This is NOT the issue keeping back fuel cells.

    SO WHAT IS?

  37. Water? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    I hear hydrogen bound to oxygen can be stored at all temperatures up to 100C. It's more economical to distribute the energy than the hydrogen. It is even more economical to distribute the process of generation and the raw materials.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  38. I use fire extinguisher tanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I produce my hydrogen and store it in fire extinguisher tanks.
    http://youtu.be/m9Q6gDKP2R0