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."

14 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
    2. 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.

  2. 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?
  3. 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 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.

    2. 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
    3. Re:An easy solution by horza · · Score: 2

      What do you think petrol is?

      Phillip.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.'"
  4. 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.

  5. Re:duh??? by Abreu · · Score: 2

    Palladium

    --
    No sig for the moment.
  6. 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.
  7. 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/