Questions about a Hydrogen Economy; Scientific American

[Ivan Seeking]

I wanted to point out a great article about our up and coming Hydrogen Economy. This article comes from the May 2004 issue of SciAm and it gives nice snapshot of the state-of-the-art.

Not available for free AFAIK, here is an internet link and brief.

In the fall of 2003, a few months after President George W. Bush announced a $1.7-billion research program to develop a vehicle that would make the air cleaner and the country less dependent on imported oil, Toyota came to Washington, D.C., with two of them. One, a commercially available hybrid sedan, had a conventional, gasoline-fueled internal-combustion engine supplemented by a battery-powered electric motor. It got about 50 miles to the gallon, and its carbon dioxide emissions were just over half those of an average car. The other auto, an experimental SUV, drove its electric motor with hydrogen fuel cells and emitted as waste only water purer than Perrier and some heat. Which was cleaner? [continued]

http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=CB826BAE-2B35-221B-6E2587F29CF2C88A&ARTICLEID_CHAR=CB9BE5E6-2B35-221B-6F2461DEF9B52B9C&sc=I100322

[jdavel]

Ivan Seeking said, "I wanted to point out a great article about our up and coming Hydrogen Economy."

Isn't it a little misleading to call what this technology could make possible a "hydrogen economy"? That term seems to imply that hydrogen is an energy source in the same way that the petroleum we get out of the ground is. But that isn't true. We're going to have to make the hydrogen, and doing that requires more energy than the hydrogen provides once it's made!

The advantage is that the energy can be produced in electric power plants and then easily distributed (in the form of electricity) through a conventional power grid to hydrogen production plants. But we're still going to need an energy source (coal?) to make the electricity that makes the hydrogen.

So, where we're really headed (maybe), is toward an economy based more on coal than our economy is currently. Since we've got lots of coal in the US, that's good, but it's hardly a "hydrogen economy".

[Janitor]

And of course coal is infamous for carbon dioxide (greenhouse) and sulfur (acid rain) and mercury (freshwater fish contamination) emissions.

If it gets to where the average citizen of India and China lives the middle-class lifestyle of a typical Westerner, I shudder to think what our air and water may become.

[Matt-235]

I remember hearing there's a decent sized initiative in the nuclear inductry to become one of the prime players in the production of hydrogen, which would be a lot better on the environment than coal would be.

I link to the DoE's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative: http://www.nuclear.gov/infosheets/hydrogenfactmarch2003.pdf

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan Seeking said, "I wanted to point out a great article about our up and coming Hydrogen Economy."

Isn't it a little misleading to call what this technology could make possible a "hydrogen economy"? That term seems to imply that hydrogen is an energy source in the same way that the petroleum we get out of the ground is. But that isn't true. We're going to have to make the hydrogen, and doing that requires more energy than the hydrogen provides once it's made!

How this will finally pan out is anyone's guess. Yes, H2 is an energy carrier, not an energy source. That is H2 101, day 1. There is much, much more to this than you may realize. There are at least 2 dozen different approaches to H2 production that include biological approaches, such as by using H2 producing bacteria, and that involve many previously untapped resources. Coal does play a role, and frankly, the article is a little less positive than our friends at the National Hydrogen Association,

http://www.hydrogenus.com/

but a lot of good information is found in the SciAm report. Please see also an earlier discussion where I made my best arguments for all of this.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4127

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is a link to some NPR interviews about Iceland which promises to serve as a test bed for H2 technologies.

http://www.loe.org/ETS/organizations.php3?action=printContentItem&orgid=33&typeID=18&itemID=204&User_Session=63e33af74b5bc33216035afa351f1a58

[Ivan Seeking]

I wanted to add that many good links are provided thoughout this thread.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4127

Please review this thread completely if you have any interest here. I did my best to provide much of the key information.

I should also add that the SciAm article does significantly play down the energy cost of fossil fuels - well to tank - as I have tried to argue. I recognize this without conceding the argument. It would take some time to find out if we are really comparing apples to apples.

[jdavel]

Ivan Seeking,

Thanks for the links. I read some, and I'll get to the others later. They're pretty encouraging, at least with respect to how close we are to having the technology.

I can't believe I've gotten on the wrong side of this "argument" with you. I'm a fanatical believer in our need to do whatever is necessary to end our dependence on oil, both for environmental and political reasons. If hydrogen is the solution (or part of the solution) then we should push it hard. I just think the term "hydrogen economy" implies a little more than it really means.

[Ivan Seeking]

Hey, no wrong side or right side here. :smile:

I just wanted to make sure that you and everyone else realizes that more exists here than most people know. It is easy to be too quickly dismissed. For years I thought the 2nd law pretty much made this all a moot point but I now believe this not true.

As for the term "Hydrogen Economy", this may be a glorification of the idea. I really don't know if any strict definitions of economics may apply, but the key concept is that H2 will act as a base, as the energy carrier for most other energy options. In this sense we would switch from a fossil fuel economy to an H2 economy. In the most hopeful sense, H2 might be viewed as the new currency for energy. Remember also that fossil fuels are no different than H2 in that fossil fuels are also energy carriers for solar energy. Same for hydropower and wind. So this can all get to be a matter of where we draw the line or how we choose to define things.

[russ_watters]

Remember also that fossil fuels are no different than H2 in that fossil fuels are also energy carriers for solar energy. Same for hydropower and wind. So this can all get to be a matter of where we draw the line or how we choose to define things. Yeah, but there is of course a difference - an important one. For oil/coal the sun and earth already did 99% of the work to make it - with H2, we have to do all of the work to make it.

[jdavel]

russ_watters said, "For oil/coal the sun and earth already did 99% of the work to make it - with H2, we have to do all of the work to make it."

Exactly!

For all intents and purposes, petroleum and coal are energy sources. In the form in which hydrogen is available, (H2O) it's not an energy source. More energy will be used to turn it into an energy source than it will produce as an energy source. That's not much to base an economy on!

[Ivan Seeking]

Yeah, but there is of course a difference - an important one. For oil/coal the sun and earth already did 99% of the work to make it - with H2, we have to do all of the work to make it.

We don't do the work; nature does by solar powered chemical, biological, or even chemically powered mechanisms such as chemosynthesis. The same for fossil fuels.

Look guys, no one argues that H2 must be produced. AFAWK, we have no ready made reserves for H2 available as we do fossil fuels. Anyone who feels that this argument needs to be made really needs to do a lot of reading. No serious advocate of H2 technologies would question this point.

Is it anyone's position here that we should not pursue renewable technologies?

[Ivan Seeking]

I remember hearing there's a decent sized initiative in the nuclear inductry to become one of the prime players in the production of hydrogen, which would be a lot better on the environment than coal would be.

I link to the DoE's Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative: http://www.nuclear.gov/infosheets/hydrogenfactmarch2003.pdf

Fission and/or Fusion power can easily co-exist symbiotically with H2 technologies.

[russ_watters]

We don't do the work; nature does by solar powered chemical, biological, or even chemically powered mechanisms such as chemosynthesis. The same for fossil fuels. In other words, burn more fossil fuels to make hydrogen? How does that help anything? Is it anyone's position here that we should not pursue renewable technologies? Certainly not - I'm just not sure what hydrogen has to do with anything in this context. I think you probably understand the issue, but to the general public, they hear the politicians talking about a hydrogen economy and picture the hydogen materializing at the gas pump. Politicians (the people driving the issue) for the most part completely ignore the issue of manufacturing the hydrogen. And that's a dealbreaker for the whole idea. Its like talking about landing a man on the moon without first discussing how to get one in orbit around earth.

Realistically if Bush or Kerry (both have picked up the issue) succeed in getting a million hydrogen powered cars on the road in 10 years and a hundred thousand hydrogen fueling stations, where is that hydrogen going to come from? Realistically. My bet is it'll come from hydrogen manufacturing plants that either take their coal-fired electricity straight from an already overloaded grid or make their own power using oil-fired gas turbine generators. Net result: more pollution, more dependancy on domestic coal and foreign oil, and a bigger energy crisis.

[Ivan Seeking]

A review of the links given in the Hydrogen thread addresses the many methods explored for producing H2.

Russ, I think your concerns are completely valid. You and I have already hashed this out pretty well in the thread linked and I realize that we disagree on questions of production. I will only say that this is a core issue being addressed on many fronts, and that many scientists feel that this is not a show stopper; but that much work is still needed.

By no means is this a done deal. To "Go Hydrogen" could still mean many different things depending on how the technologies pan out.

Finally, I make no bones about my motives here. I think we need many brains filled with thoughts of Hydrogen. Politically, economically, scientifically, and environmentally, H2 strikes me as our best hope to finally end our addiction to oil. The political motivation is now more obvious than ever. Bye bye OPEC!

[russ_watters]

My opinion is the same as before as well: we need to focus on our power grid first, fixing a primary issue before a secondary (and tertiary?) one.

[Ivan Seeking]

Realistically if Bush or Kerry (both have picked up the issue) succeed in getting a million hydrogen powered cars on the road in 10 years and a hundred thousand hydrogen fueling stations, where is that hydrogen going to come from? Realistically. My bet is it'll come from hydrogen manufacturing plants that either take their coal-fired electricity straight from an already overloaded grid or make their own power using oil-fired gas turbine generators. Net result: more pollution, more dependancy on domestic coal and foreign oil, and a bigger energy crisis.

I should add also that to some extent the SciAM article referenced supports your position better than mine. On this point my response is that many key issues are addressed, but some of the important issues are not addressed.

This is a very broad subject. This in fact is a key feature of H2: Decentralization of the energy supply.

Unfortunately, this also demands that the range of solutions is very large. I don't know if I have even heard of all possible options for production. I see references occasionally that imply that even more can be found.

[Cliff_J]

This is a very broad subject. This in fact is a key feature of H2: Decentralization of the energy supply.

And I think this is the main stumbling block/selling point beyond the glassy eyed notion that H2 can work only with exclusive fuel cells produced by hand in the lab. The ICE is here to stay short-term, and the additional costs to equip/retrofit to FFVs that could handle H2 would be pretty insignificant long-term.

After that, the notion of producing mass quantities of H2 from burning coal or natural gas is so illogical that it could only come from government members who are motivated by the individuals that can directly benefit from such a decision. At least Carnegie and Rockefeller were obvious targets to control, much less clear today. In the future we could call the Enron of H2 production from fossil fuels some sort of Hindenburg moniker, I can already hear great sound-bites and see the visuals....

Maybe rebirth of the "flower-power" days will hit when the SUV goes the way of the muscle car and the VW van is replaced with a H2 compatible car. It'd be interesting to see which oil distribution companies make the journey or completely miss the target like the number of ice-box manufacturers and ice processing companies who embraced the refridgerator. (zero)

Cliff

P.S. Anyone have information on how much power eletrolysis requires to produce a given quantity of H2? Would it be as low as 10kW/1L?

[russ_watters]

And I think this is the main stumbling block/selling point beyond the glassy eyed notion that H2 can work only with exclusive fuel cells produced by hand in the lab. The ICE is here to stay short-term, and the additional costs to equip/retrofit to FFVs that could handle H2 would be pretty insignificant long-term. That would be a deal-breaker due to H2's efficiency as a storage medium when you recover the energy in an ICE vs fuel cells (30% vs 90%). I don't think there is any question that fuel cells can be mass produced - that they haven't is simply a matter of demand.P.S. Anyone have information on how much power eletrolysis requires to produce a given quantity of H2? Would it be as low as 10kW/1L? The simple answer is 'the same amount of energy you get back when you burn the hydrogen.' Meaning, I don't think its really an important number - it just determines how big storage tanks need to be but doesn't affect generation costs. But in any case, its 285 kJ/mol. You can convert the units to whatever...

[zoobyshoe]

P.S. Anyone have information on how much power eletrolysis requires to produce a given quantity of H2? Would it be as low as 10kW/1L?

This book:

Fuel from Water
Address:http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks/hydrogen/index.html

Goes into extensive detail about that. The energy requirements vary considerably with the design of the electrolysis cells. One interesting thing he mentioned is that the voltage requirement tops off for any kind of cell at about two volts. It never takes more than that. The current depends on the materials of the electrodes, their distance from each other, the means used to isolate the electrodes, the size of the cells, and considerations like that. He does say that the smallest amount of energy needed to electrolyse one mole of water is 63.3 Wh at 25C (77F).

[Ivan Seeking]

H2 allows wind, solar, and nuclear power to be "carried" to automobiles, aircraft, and large industrial vehicles.

[zoobyshoe]

H2 allows wind, solar, and nuclear power to be "carried" to automobiles, aircraft, and large industrial vehicles.
It is unlike generating electricity with wind and solar, because there is no need for a smooth steady rate of production. Overall volume is important, but since we're talking about a storage situation here, there is no need for a minute to minute steady rate, and the daytime-only production by solar power is no problem.

[Janitor]

Interestingly, zoobyshoe's 228 kJ/mol is a bit less than Russ's 285 kJ/mol. I wonder why the discrepancy.

[zoobyshoe]

Interestingly, zoobyshoe's 228 kJ/mol is a bit less than Russ's 285 kJ/mol. I wonder why the discrepancy.
Apparently the process is not accomplished by electricity alone and depends on heat taken in from the surroundings as well, which is why my author gave that figure at that specific temperature.

[Ivan Seeking]

This would also mean that the transportation infrastucture for power, such as oil tankers, can eventually be [mostly] dismantled. Power can be produced semi-locally using the best options for each region.

National security benefits greatly. The political and economic value of energy autonomy is hard to even imagine.

The environmental benefits are obvious and vast.

Health benefits can be estimated but I don't have that information readily available. What is the health benefit, for example, in dollars, in eliminating fossil fuel powered vehicles?

[Ivan Seeking]

for producing hydrogen:
-------------------------
Direct production from whole biomass

Gasification

Thermal/Steam/Partial Oxidation

A technical note by Williams (1980) (USA) makes a case for efficient hydrogen production from coal using centrifuge separation of hydrogen from other gases following steam gasification at 1100-5000°C. Recent advances in new materials developed by the aerospace industry made it appear possible to develop such a gaseous centrifuge.

A large number of single research studies have appeared from 1981-2000, from researchers in many countries around the world. Brief notes follow. McDonald et al. (1981) (New Zealand) proposed extracting protein from grass and lucern and using the residue for hydrogen production (among other fuels). Saha et al. (1982, 1984) (India) reported using a laboratory-scale fluidized-bed autothermal gasifier to gasify carbonaceous materials in steam. Further studies with agricultural wastes were planned. Cocco and Costantinides (1998) (Italy) describe the pyrolysis-gasification of biomass to hydrogen. More-or-less conventional gasification of biomass and wastes has been employed with the goal of maximizing hydrogen production. Researchers at the Energy and Environmental Research Center at Grand Forks have studied biomass and coal catalytic gasification for hydrogen and methane (Hauserman & Timpe, 1992, and Hauserman...

Hydrogen from Biomass-Derived Pyrolysis Oils Laboratory work using this approach has been conducted at NREL (USA), starting in 1993 (see Chornet et al., 1994; Wang et al., 1994; Wang et al., 1995; Chornet et al., 1995; and Chornet et al., 1996 a, b, c). Early papers present the concept of fast pyrolysis for converting biomass and wastes to oxygenated oils. These oils are subsequently cracked and steam-reformed to yield hydrogen and CO as final products (Mann et al., 1994). The 1995 Wang report presents the chemical and thermodynamic basis of this approach, the catalysis related to steam reforming of the oxygenates, and the techoeconomic integration of the process...

Six progress reports in 1996 and 1997 document the systematic exploration of the pyrolysis oilto-hydrogen process. In Chornet et al. (1996a) bench-scale experiments determined the performance of nickel-catalysts in steam reforming of acetic acid, hydroxyacetaldehyde, furfural, and syringol. All proceeded rapidly. Time-on-stream experiments were started. In Chornet et al., (1996b), Czernik et al., (1996), and Wang et al. (1997a), the approach of using extractable, valuable co-products with the balance of the oil converted to hydrogen is explored.
---------------------------------

Small scale reformer technologies
-------------------------------------

Four types of solar photochemical hydrogen systems have been identified: photochemical systems, semiconductor systems, photobiological systems and hybrid and other systems. Asurvey of the state-of-the-art of these four types has been presented. The four system types (and their sub-types) have been examined in a technological assessment, where each has been examined as to efficiency, potential for improvement and long-term functionality. Four solar hydrogen systems have been selected as showing sufficient promise for further research and development:

1. Photovoltaic cells plus an electrolyzer
2. Photoelectrochemical cells with one or more semiconductor
electrodes
3. Photobiological systems
4. Photodegradation systems
------------------------------------

Photoelectrolytic and Photobiological Production of Hydrogen
-----------------------------------------------------

Hydrogen by Catalytic Decomposition of Water:
Researchers at DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory and Argonne National Laboratory have patented a "Method of Generating Hydrogen by Catalytic Decomposition of Water." The invention potentially leapfrogs current capital and energy intensive processes that produce hydrogen from fossil fuels or through the electrolysis of water. According to co-inventor Arun Bose, "Hydrogen can be produced by electrolysis, but the high voltage requirements are a commercial barrier. The invention provides a new route for producing hydrogen from water by using mixed proton-electron conducting membranes." Water is decomposed on the feed surface. The hydrogen is ionized and protons and electrons travel concurrently through the membrane. On the permeate side, they combine into hydrogen molecules.
--------------------------------------------------------

DENSE CERAMIC MEMBRANES FOR HYDROGEN SEPARATION
------------------------------------------------------

HYDROGEN FROM COAL

[Cliff_J]

That would be a deal-breaker due to H2's efficiency as a storage medium when you recover the energy in an ICE vs fuel cells (30% vs 90%). I don't think there is any question that fuel cells can be mass produced - that they haven't is simply a matter of demand.

We seem to have no reservations at blissfully wasting away limited natural resources. I see no reason why we couldn't do the same with a renewable one if the production demands could be met. :smile:

I thought that mass production was very difficult, akin to large silicon chip production where extreme cleanliness, low margin of error, and high failure rate was common. But if there's a demand great enough then someone will do a costs/benefits analysis and do it, I agree.


The simple answer is 'the same amount of energy you get back when you burn the hydrogen.' Meaning, I don't think its really an important number - it just determines how big storage tanks need to be but doesn't affect generation costs. But in any case, its 285 kJ/mol. You can convert the units to whatever...

I was going to add "minus losses associated with electroylsis" in my mind but from that other posts it sounds like the process is assisted by heat from environment. Interesting, wonder how accurate that is?

But as far as generation costs, one website on renewable energy did the math on how large a solar farm would need to be to generate the equivalent of the US electrical consumption. Using current PVs only and assuming the daytime generation could be used at night (stored as H2 :wink: ) the farm would only be 125x125 miles. Massive? Yes, but how large is just the resivor from the Hoover dam? Oversimplified? For sure, but an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.

What is the issues with the power-grid. Am I better off ignorant to the problems so I can just assume that when I flip the light switch the lights will come on? I'd hope the recent NE blackout would have the wheels in motion to resolve all that, but that's likely way too optimistic once budgets and politics comes into play...

Cliff

[zoobyshoe]

We seem to have no reservations at blissfully wasting away limited natural resources. I see no reason why we couldn't do the same with a renewable one if the production demands could be met. :smile:
Excellent point.
I was going to add "minus losses associated with electroylsis" in my mind but from that other posts it sounds like the process is assisted by heat from environment. Interesting, wonder how accurate that is?
I was hoping someone who was well informed about electrochemistry would sort this out. I am only vaguely aware that there are endothermic and exothermic chemical reactions (some reactions require heat imput, others have heat as a byproduct ) but this is the first time I have run into it being connected with electrochemistry.

But as far as generation costs, one website on renewable energy did the math on how large a solar farm would need to be to generate the equivalent of the US electrical consumption. Using current PVs only and assuming the daytime generation could be used at night (stored as H2 :wink: ) the farm would only be 125x125 miles. Massive? Yes, but how large is just the resivor from the Hoover dam? Oversimplified? For sure, but an interesting thought experiment nonetheless.
The periphery of the Salton Sea here in Southern California would be an excellent place to spread a 125 square mile solar plant out. This massive brine lake was created by accident early in the 20th century and people have been trying to make something out of it ever since. You have: low population density, large water supply that is being used for nothing else, and intense desert sun. You could generate electricity, hydrogen, or both. Potential problem: couple of wildlife/bird sancutaries to stay away from, not insurmountable.

[russ_watters]

It is unlike generating electricity with wind and solar, because there is no need for a smooth steady rate of production. Overall volume is important, but since we're talking about a storage situation here, there is no need for a minute to minute steady rate, and the daytime-only production by solar power is no problem. That is a pro for hydrogen (or any other form of storage) - it allows for utilization of some otherwise wasted capacity by doing more of the production during off-peak hours. In Philly, there is a reservoir that's used as an energy storage facility: water is pumped up a hill at night and runs turbines during the day. Interestingly, zoobyshoe's 228 kJ/mol is a bit less than Russ's 285 kJ/mol. I wonder why the discrepancy. Dunno - could be temperature. I googled it...
... come to think of it, its possible that mine was just heat of fusion of H2O, which wouldn't include the energy required to split H2 and O2 into 2H and 2O. Apparently the process is not accomplished by electricity alone and depends on heat taken in from the surroundings as well, which is why my author gave that figure at that specific temperature. Not quite. Every reaction has an energy level (temperature/pressure) associated with it. So if you are (for example) freezing water, the energy required depends on the starting temperature - first you cool the water to 0C, then you freeze it. So the higher the starting temp, the more energy associated with the total reaction. Similarly, there is a specific temperature/pressure at which a molecule of H2 splits into two atoms of H. Activation energy is the energy it takes to get there from where-ever you started. We seem to have no reservations at blissfully wasting away limited natural resources. I see no reason why we couldn't do the same with a renewable one if the production demands could be met. Its not an issue of waste, its an issue of cost: Most people spend $600 or so a year fueling their cars. Assuming H2 cost the same per mile as gas (big assumption), you'd have a choice between buying a car that costs you $600 a year to fuel or one that cost you $200 a year to fuel. It would also triple the startup cost for this "hydrogen economy" because you need triple the generation and triple the transmission infrastructure. Fuel cells would end up cheaper. But as far as generation costs, one website on renewable energy did the math on how large a solar farm would need to be to generate the equivalent of the US electrical consumption. Using current PVs only and assuming the daytime generation could be used at night (stored as H2 ) the farm would only be 125x125 miles. Massive? Yes, but how large is just the resivor from the Hoover dam? Oversimplified? For sure, but an interesting thought experiment nonetheless. Lake Mead is 247 square miles and isn't covered with panels that cost $10/square foot. Some more math: that's $4 trillion dollars worth of solar panels. That said, it still may be worth doing over the next 50 years.What is the issues with the power-grid. Am I better off ignorant to the problems so I can just assume that when I flip the light switch the lights will come on? I'd hope the recent NE blackout would have the wheels in motion to resolve all that, but that's likely way too optimistic once budgets and politics comes into play... I know to someone with a scientific mindset, ignorance is not bliss, so I'll answer... The problems with the transmission side of the grid are more critical than those on the generation side. To avoid more NE (and NW a few years ago) blackouts requires a few hundred billion dollars right now. Then we'll need to double the capacity of the high voltage part to support hydrogen production...I was hoping someone who was well informed about electrochemistry would sort this out. I am only vaguely aware that there are endothermic and exothermic chemical reactions (some reactions require heat imput, others have heat as a byproduct ) but this is the first time I have run into it being connected with electrochemistry. Endothermic vs exothermic is talking about net energy of the reaction. The final product. Again, water: an ice cube sitting on the table gains energy from the environment when it melts - its endothermic. A glass of water in the freezer gives energy to the freezer: exothermic. The periphery of the Salton Sea here in Southern California would be an excellent place to spread a 125 square mile solar plant out. There are lots of places to put a massive solar plant, but distribution isn't a trivial thing: better to spread them out. And thats 125 miles squared (15,625 square miles), not 125 square miles. :wink:

[zoobyshoe]

So the higher the starting temp, the more energy associated with the total reaction. Similarly, there is a specific temperature/pressure at which a molecule of H2 splits into two atoms of H. Activation energy is the energy it takes to get there from where-ever you started.
Explanation clear. Thanks.
Lake Mead is 247 square miles and isn't covered with panels that cost $10/square foot. Some more math: that's $4 trillion dollars worth of solar panels.
I'm into parabolic reflectors for all things solar, myself.
Again, water: an ice cube sitting on the table gains energy from the environment when it melts - its endothermic. A glass of water in the freezer gives energy to the freezer: exothermic.
Understood I can see how this is not connected to the ambient temperature during electrolysis. Thanks.
There are lots of places to put a massive solar plant, but distribution isn't a trivial thing: better to spread them out.
Here's my reasoning: I think it would be easier to solve the problem of getting the hydrogen to Minnesota from Salton Sea than it would be to generate it in Minnesota. There aren't many days of full on sun there per year, and the windmill-busting winters would put a damper on that tack.

Regardless, your point about spreading things out is a good one. I suppose all the other methods of generation cited by Ivan would become the most viable for places like Mn.
And thats 125 miles squared (15,625 square miles), not 125 square miles. :wink:
Er...I knew that!

[Ivan Seeking]

The key issue with electrolysis is not that a new source of energy is found, it is that sources once limited to the production of electricity, such as fission or [hopefully] fusion power, in addition to solar, wind, and hydro, can now be used via H2 as a fuel source for nearly any application. This, in addition to the many non-electrolytic approaches to H2 production broadly diversifies the energy base for transportation.

[zoobyshoe]

The key issue with electrolysis is not that a new source of energy is found, it is that sources once limited to the production of electricity, such as fission or [hopefully] fusion power, in addition to solar, wind, and hydro, can now be used via H2 as a fuel source for nearly any application. This, in addition to the many non-electrolytic approaches to H2 production broadly diversifies the energy base for transportation.
This may be true, but hydrogen has no appeal to me on this basis. The ability to broaden nuclear power to run cars, in fact, bothers me. I like hydrogen because it can be generated with solar and wind and then stored, and because when you burn it all that results is water.

[Ivan Seeking]

ssssshhhhhh. It is still a nice carrot for the pro-nuclear crowd. :rolleyes:

Even on fission my mind is still open.[edit: hey, that's kind of funny] We have a family member who is a retired, high ranking [GE] nuclear engineer who remains active in the industry in various ways. He is quite sold on fast flux reactor technologies. Also, methods that make melt down impossible are now explored - such as by using ceramic encapsulated Pu beads for a core. I have been anti-nuclear for about twenty five years now, but on this point of new technologies I try to remain open.

Fusion may be great! We will just have to wait and see.

[zoobyshoe]

ssssshhhhhh. It is still a nice carrot for the pro-nuclear crowd. :rolleyes:
Whoops! Sorry!
Also, methods that make melt down impossible are now explored - such as by using ceramic encapsulated Pu beads for a core. I have been anti-nuclear for about twenty five years now, but on this point of new technologies I try to remain open.
I thought I had heard that this non-meltdownable thing was already up and running in Canada.

Regardless, I'm very much less concerned about meltdowns than about disposal of the waste.

[Ivan Seeking]

Regardless, I'm very much less concerned about meltdowns than about disposal of the waste.

This is my main objection as well. On this point I am told that the French do a pretty good job of recycling. Still, I am no advocate for nuclear power. I really wish I could be. High hopes for fusion still.

Tokamak, Tokamak, Tokamak!

[Janitor]

I found a table which said bond energies in kJ/mol are:

H-H 436
O=O 499
O-H 463

So in order to approximate the energy requirements for 2 H20 --> 2H2 + O2, figure 4*463 to tear apart two water molecules, then get back 2*436 for the recombining hydrogen atoms plus 499 for the recombining oxygen atoms. The net energy required is thus 1,852 - 872 - 499 = 481. But a single water molecule would only require half that, 240.5 kJ/mol, to be split. This number is between the two numbers already given in this thread. This calculation ignores subtleties, such as that the O-H bond energy listed above would not apply exactly when the O already has another hydrogen attached to it.

[Ivan Seeking]

According to the Scientific American article, in practice, electrolytic production of H2 results in a 22% efficiency- as required to create the H2. H2 production by steam reforming techniques can be over 60% efficient.

This steam reforming option [cracking natural gas with steam], when combined with hydrogen fuel cells, is claimed to yield the best source-to-wheels effiiency of all options - about 22%. This is better than gasoline internal combustion, diesel combustion, compressed natural gas, compressed H2 for combustion, gasoline hybrids, diesel hybrids, gasoline fuel cell, methanol fuel cell, ethanol fuel cell, or H2 by electric; which all land around 12% to 16% for a source-to-wheels efficiency.

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that this does not address electrolysis combined with catalytic materials, or some of the more advanced techniques being explored.

[zoobyshoe]

In the other thread I posted about the process of dissociating water into hydrogen and oxygen by high temperature created with a parabolic mirror from sunlight. Efficiency is moot with this, since the energy is free. The problem, they say, is developing materials for the equipment that can withstand the high temperatures.

Water spontaneously dissociates at 2,730C (4,946F). This isn't that hard to achieve with a parabolic reflector: it's a matter of size. In the 1700s they ground a 20ft dia glass lens that would instantaneously vaporize stones placed at the focal point. So, I think a mirror about that size is probably what we're talking about to dissociate water by heat.

The hydrogen and oxygen would be lead to a water quench and then separated by gravity. I'm very fond of this idea.

[Ivan Seeking]

Not to be negative since work is definitely going on here, but efficiency is a consideration as a function of the cost of production per square foot of light incident area, the total mass rate of production of H2 as a function of this area, and the maintenance and lifespan of the system. This all affects the final cost of energy per watt, to the consumer - in whatever form it may take. So, from what I have seen and only as a hypothetical example, at some point it might make more sense to fill the Mojave Desert with solar panels and wind generators as opposed to light focusing systems. Likewise, focusing technologies may be more practical in Death Valley.

The cost of photoelectric panels is supposed to drop precipitously as production techniques improve. I have seen some really encouraging reports in the tech news in recent years.

On the high temp, focused light side, I have seen some neat work being done. I think that that liquid lithium is used in one system to generate steam.

[Ivan Seeking]

Something that I am just learning about now...with reforming technologies in mind.

Methane Hydrates -
The Gas Resource of the Future...

...Worldwide, estimates of the natural gas potential of methane hydrates approach 400 million trillion cubic feet -- a staggering figure compared to the 5,000 trillion cubic feet that make up the world's currently known gas reserves. [continued]

http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/

[BCRion]

This is my main objection as well. On this point I am told that the French do a pretty good job of recycling. Still, I am no advocate for nuclear power. I really wish I could be. High hopes for fusion still.

Tokamak, Tokamak, Tokamak!

There are some interesting technologies using transmutation to convert the particularly bad fission products into more stable products that are much easier to handle and have less disposal time. The advancements in the past five years have been quite encouraging, although the economics still need work.

Keep in mind that only 1-2% of spent fuel is actually fission product waste. The rest is Plutonium and other Actinites (2%) and good old U-238 (96%). This is potentially a valuable fuel in the future.

As far as the issue of waste disposal, at least it can theoretically be disposed of. Fossil fuels really do not give us this option. There is simply way too much waste. It's a trade off. Everything has costs.

DT fusion has serious materials problems to commercialization. The neutron damage to the reactor vessel could prove to be uneconomic as it would require constant replacement. Also, Tritium can be some pretty bad stuff especially in the GigaCurie quantities. Perhaps D-3He fusion would be more economic. However, we would need to go to the moon for that. 3He-3He would be great...nuclear power with no nuclear waste.

[Cliff_J]

Our tranmission grid is in a state of affairs where it needs hundreds of billions to get it fixed? Wasn't this deregulated just a few years back in the 80s? The History channel program "Modern Marvels" on the power grid mostly focused on challenges with power generation and glossed over the issues with transmission. They did cover the NY blackout in the late 60s, the CA issues, and the NE blackout and its roots. They talked about the challenges of monitoring transmissions as being the 'key' to avoiding problems in the future. Is this what you're referring to, or to the actual transmission lines and routing, or something more substantial like redundant lines to mitigate single-point failures?

The 4 trillion dollar PV farm is to me like asking if we could scrounge auto salvage yards and pick up old motors with their generators and make a megawatt powerplant. Possible, but horribly inefficient. But I find it facisnating that we could farm out a few sq miles of dessert in the SW and produce enough energy to effectively 'run' the country. From a producers point of view, how long before the we could get the technology to the point where the yield from H2 production could exceed the profit from growing crops? Even better is using land not currently in a production capacity and without much environmental impact. The Marlborlo man on horseback image replaced with an image of a PhD drinking Starbucks riding an electric scooter while making sure the array is fully functional. :smile:

Personally I think it makes more sense to keep the costs centralized because even at 3x the capacity the expense should be fractional (large fixed small variable costs model) or as a worst case scenario exponential, but regardless far easier to implement first. Similar to Arnold's ambitious "...build it and they will come..." proposals. Hopefully with better success than GM had with their EV1 car. $400 a year doesn't really pay for the cost of the fuel cell in the near future, and a big set of government subsidies on cars that will depreciate quickly seems wasteful instead of infrastructure investments that the general public could access after a retrofit to their existing autos.

Lots of interesting things in store though, hopefully sooner than later. I just want to setup a small PV cell hooked to an electrolysis still, and buy another lawn mower to attempt a H2 conversion on a little Briggs & Stratton engine. Low cost, low risk....maybe next year. :biggrin:

Cliff

[Ivan Seeking]

One thing that scares me a bit is the idea that land use for food might come into competition with land use for energy, but typically it seems that solar is best where food does not grow well, such as in deserts, and wind generators do not really compete for land directly as do PV panels. Biomass need not be anything useful, and coal is coal.

As for the chicken and the egg problem, what I see as one possibility is that in addition to small test programs, industry will apply H2 technologies in such a way that small test communities will emerge. For example, let’s imagine that Weyerhaeuser discovers that they can produce H2 as a byproduct of some process used in the production of paper. All of the company cars could then be converted to run using H2 as a fuel source. I have seen this done for years in other applications. My uncle worked for Richfield [now ARCO] for forty years. He drove a natural gas powered company vehicle for as long as I can remember.

So, along with engineered test communities that are created through various means, such as through research, private funding, and government test programs, my hope is that industry might lead the charge through the practical application of existing technologies. In some cases at least, simply adding a few steps to an existing process can yield an untapped supply of energy that was sometimes even lost as waste. Also, I would assume that certain large population centers that have an H2 advantage, say for example Phoenix or Vegas [with PV in mind], will see the economic justification for H2 fueling stations and local H2 production before most other places. Maybe we will even see auto dealers selling H2 to get things started.

As with anything new, there will have to be a bleeding edge.

[Ivan Seeking]

Far more natural gas is sequestered on the seafloor—or leaking from it—than can be drilled from all the existing wells on Earth. The ocean floor is teeming with methane, the same gas that fuels our homes and our economy.

In more and more locations throughout the world’s oceans, scientists are finding methane percolating through the seafloor, bubbling into the water column, collecting in pockets beneath seafloor sediments, or solidifying in a peculiar ice-like substance, called methane hydrates, in the cold, pressurized depths of the ocean.

Massive deposits of methane hydrates could prove to be abundant reservoirs of fuel. But in the past, these massive storehouses of methane also may have “thawed” suddenly and catastrophically, releasing great quantities of climate-altering greenhouse gas back into the atmosphere [continued]

http://oceanusmag.whoi.edu/v42n2/whelan.html

Also:
METHANE FUEL PUTS PLANET IN DANGER: Scientistswarn of global warming catastrophe in hunt for new energy. IT HAS been hailed as the fuel of the future, a source of energy that could powerour planet throughout the next century. But now scientists have warned thatthe world’s largest untapped energy reserves—huge deposits of methane gaslocked under the ocean floor–could trigger a catastrophic bout of atmosphericwarming that would cause global devastation. [continued]

http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cache:KfeKvAQf5-wJ:www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugte133/courses/environs/cuttings/warming/methane.pdf+Worlds+known+methane+deposits&hl=en

[Ivan Seeking]

Who Studies Gas Hydrate?
http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/who.html

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure about methane. Its certainly preferable to other forms of hydrocarbons, but it is still a hydrocarbon. Whether you convert it to hydrogen to burn in a hydrogen fuel cell, use it as methane in a fuel cell, or burn it, the chemical reaction is about the same and as a result, the pollution is about the same.

[Ivan Seeking]

On this point it is argued that clean, carbon based technologies are practical on a large scale but not on a small scale; such as on a car by car basis. It is within our reach, some say, to build large, clean, H2 reforming plants that use carbon based fuels as the primary energy source. This includes reforming coal for H2. In the most ideal sense this is a transitional technology that addresses the practical concerns about an energy base. Also, Methane -> H2 -> Fuel cell is now the most efficient option from source to wheels. In principle, if we could convert instantly to fossil fuel fired H2 production from methane, and then if we used this H2 in fuel cell powered cars, we would instantly require about 2% less energy in total - according the Sci American data [Edit: note that I had said 5%, the correct number is about 2.5%+-0.5% from what I can see]. Allegedly this includes the efficiency of production of the H2 as well as the efficiency of the auto; from energy source to fuel cell to wheels.

Note also that the total of greenhouse emissions through this channel is about 140 grams of gh gas per mile. This compares to 380 grams per mile for autos burning fossil fuels directly. Apparently this does not assume clean, carbon based H2 production, so this might be a worst case only estimate - i.e. if this happened today with established technologies.

BTW, I'm not convinced that this is the best path but this seems to be the state of the consensus for now. I still think we may ignore huge energy losses in the production of fuel cells and in the efficiency of the fuel chain for gasoline and diesel. I will provide related information as I'm able. It also possible, God forbid, that my previous evaluation of this issue is wrong :surprise: but I'm not buying into that just yet.

Minor edits for clarity.

I should add that the article stresses that this issue is very complex.

[Ivan Seeking]

The NHA's Hydrogen Commercialization Plan
http://www.hydrogenus.com/commercializationplan.asp

A sustainable hydrogen energy industry - an energy system based upon the extensive use of hydrogen as an energy storage and transportation medium - must be established if an environmentally and economically sustainable world is to be left to our children and grandchildren. Few doubt that the hydrogen energy industry will eventually evolve. Many debate the timing of such a development. Only by defining the nature of a future hydrogen energy system, by identifying the path to such a system, and by actively taking the first steps along that path will we, as a world society, achieve that goal in time to avoid serious environmental and economic disruptions.

The National Hydrogen Association, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Energy, is embarking upon the process of defining the path and beginning the journey. The NHA believes that this journey will only be successful by working together in an industry/government partnership. [continued]

The NHA's Hydrogen Implementation Plan
http://www.hydrogenus.com/implementationplan.asp

The 1999 Implementation Plan provides a path to achieve the near-term goals of the NHA’s Hydrogen Commercialization Plan.

The Hydrogen Commercialization Plan, as first drafted in 1996, challenged industry and others to show their commitment to making hydrogen a major “energy carrier” in three major markets — autos, buses, and power generation. Industry, government, and other sectors are responding to this challenge through the development of hydrogen products with aggressive milestones and field tests. The Implementation Plan lays out a strategy which, if followed, would achieve the near-term goals of the Hydrogen Commercialization Plan. Achievement of these goals will also establish niche markets or a market presence important for hydrogen energy systems. [continued]

[Ivan Seeking]

I should have included this in the quote from the Implementation Plan above.

Roles:

...Academia

The key role of academia is to increase public awareness and acceptance through education of high school and college students about hydrogen systems, and informing the public of the true cost of fossil fuels, far more than simply the price at the pumps.

In addition, academia can solve long-term technical issues for future generations through research and development. This may be accomplished through government and industry support.

[russ_watters]

On this point it is argued that clean, carbon based technologies are practical on a large scale but not on a small scale. Economies of scale - yes, that's certainly a possibility. But the cynic in me says that its currently possible with existing coal-fired plants too - and it isn't beng done. A simple law to require it could vastly reduce the US's pollution output in a very short amount of time (and add maybe 1% to our energy costs). This can/needs to be done independent of (and easier than) converting to a hydrogen economy.Also, Methane -> H2 -> Fuel cell is now the most efficient option from source to wheels. In principle, if we could convert instantly to fossil fuel fired H2 production from methane, and then if we used this H2 in fuel cell powered cars, we would instantly require about 2% less energy in total - according the Sci American data [Edit: note that I had said 5%, the correct number is about 2.5%+-0.5% from what I can see]. Allegedly this includes the efficiency of production of the H2 as well as the efficiency of the auto; from energy source to fuel cell to wheels. Not sure about "well-to-wheel" efficiency. I've heard it before and I don't see the relevance because its generally used in apples to oranges comparisons. IE, what is the well-to-wheel efficiency of solar-powered electrolysis->hydrogen fuel cell? I think the more important number would be $$$$ per mile.

Also, what's 2%? Half a terawatt (from all sources - electric power, gas heat, cars)? At face value, thats a ton of energy, but our usage is growing by at least that that rate every year.

[Ivan Seeking]

Economies of scale - yes, that's certainly a possibility. But the cynic in me says that its currently possible with existing coal-fired plants too - and it isn't beng done. A simple law to require it could vastly reduce the US's pollution output in a very short amount of time (and add maybe 1% to our energy costs). This can/needs to be done independent of (and easier than) converting to a hydrogen economy.

I completely agree.

Not sure about "well-to-wheel" efficiency. I've heard it before and I don't see the relevance because its generally used in apples to oranges comparisons. IE, what is the well-to-wheel efficiency of solar-powered electrolysis->hydrogen fuel cell? I think the more important number would be $$$$ per mile.

The two are unavoidably connected. I think a key concept here is that certain "energy" solutions appear to be more beneficial than in fact. The "well-to-wheels" efficiency is merely an attempt to quantify the complete energy costs for a given technology.

Consider solar panels [edit: ie. photovoltaic]. Solar technology promises to get cheap very quickly, but until now it is quite possible that the complete energy costs to produce the panels was greater than the energy recovered over the life of the panel. If we consider the entire process from the mining, transport, and smelting or raw material, material processing and handling, right through to the actual production of the panel, a lot of energy is spent per square inch of the final product. Many hidden fossil fuel costs contaminate this so called "clean" technology. So, this brings to light the concept the "fossil fuel [energy] battery". Fossil fuel energy invested in the panel gets returned as the panel is used. So for some time - presumably the life of the panel until now - this is really fossil fuel power, just delayed.

The same argument applies to wind powered generators. In this context at least I think the need to quantify all of this becomes obvious. Also, it should be possible to gauge the energy cost of a technology wrt another by looking at the cost per KwH over the lifespan of the application. How closely this actually tracks, I don't know. I do know that an economic comparison of solar or wind to standard public utilities is just now showing the economic justification to change for some select areas. In most cases, putting solar panels on your home was a losing proposition.

Also, what's 2%? Half a terawatt (from all sources - electric power, gas heat, cars)? At face value, thats a ton of energy, but our usage is growing by at least that that rate every year.

To me the significance is that we have passed the break even point. I would expect that for the first time, the economy of some energy options finally can compete with fossil fuels. This strikes me as being fairly significant. Also, we get a 63% reduction in ghg emissions.

[zoobyshoe]

What do you think of this one? This one sounds great to me. Imput:solar heat. Output: Hydrogen. Everything else is recycled over and over. Clean. Cheap.

"Multi-step metal oxide cycles for solar-thermal water splitting"
**** The goal of my research is the discovery of a feasible means of transforming solar energy into chemical energy in the form of hydrogen, thus uncovering a renewable, sustainable pathway to the "hydrogen economy."* The pathway I am focusing on is a solar thermal water splitting cycle utilizing metal oxides.* A metal oxide (e.g. ZnO) is passed through a solar thermal reactor and undergoes a thermal dissociation reaction.* The reduced metal or metal oxide is collected and the oxygen gas is allowed to escape.* The reduced metal or metal oxide can then be fed to another reactor containing water, where an oxidation reaction occurs, splitting the water, releasing hydrogen, and forming once again the original metal oxide.* This metal oxide can be recycled to the solar reactor, forming an overall cycle where the only feed is water and the only products are hydrogen and oxygen.
The solar thermal dissociation is performed in a high flux solar furnace, where radiant energy from the sun is concentrated up to 10,000 times by parabolic mirrors and focused on a chemical reactor.* With this configuration, temperatures up to 3000 K and heating rates of 1,000,000 K/s can be achieved, providing access to reaction regimes not available to any other renewable energy technology.
The cycle currently of most interest to me utilizes zinc oxide (ZnO) as the metal oxide energy carrier.* ZnO is used in the thermal dissociation step, and thermodynamic simulations suggest that it should react to completion between 2100 K and 2300 K.* The water splitting step employs the reduced Zn metal, and will react exothermally around 700 K.* Due to the exothermic nature of this reaction, it can be run autothermally.* My current work with the ZnO cycle focuses on determining the intrinsic kinetics of the ZnO dissociation reaction and attempting to engineer methods to prevent recombination of the Zn and oxygen products in the cooling stage of the reactor.
Chris Perkins at TEAM WEIMER
Address:http://www.colorado.edu/che/TeamWeimer/perkins.htm Changed:6:21 PM on Thursday, June 17, 2004******************************************* ***
*
******* ****

[zoobyshoe]

Others working on the same process:
ETH - Renewable Energy Carriers

Address:http://www.pre.ethz.ch/cgi-bin/main.pl?research?project6

Solar Production Of Zinc: Concentrated solar energy is used as the source of process heat for the dissociation of zinc oxide
Address:http://solar.web.psi.ch/daten/projekt/zno/roca/roca.html Changed:6:37 PM on Thursday, June 17, 2004

Mechanical Engineering "Power & Energy," March 2004 -- "Packaging Sunlight," Feature Article
Address:http://www.memagazine.org/pemar04/pckgsun/pckgsun.html Changed:12:46 PM on Monday, March 8, 2004

[Ivan Seeking]

I would say this approach looks really promising. Here is some more related information. It seems that there are many different reactions explored here.

In the course of the past several decades, many thermochemical cycles have been devised for production of hydrogen from water. It has been shown that thermochemical water splitting cycles (TCWSCs) have potential to deliver overall system efficiencies in excess of 40%....

i. Bunsen reaction involving iodine and thermal
decomposition of HI. As depicted in Figure 1, in
addition to the sulfuric acid decomposition step, the
following reactions are employed:
SO2 + I2 + 2H2O = 2HI(aq) + H2SO4 (aq)
followed by thermal decomposition of
hydroiodic acid:

2HI = H2 + I2
This is the General Atomics process with the
revised cycle having improved energetics and an
overall efficiency of about 50%. A variation of this
TCWSC is the so-called Bowman-Westinghouse
cycle that employs a reaction involving bromine
(instead of iodine) and electrolysis of hydrobromic
acid (in lieu of thermal decomposition of HI). The
electrolytic decomposition of HBr requires a cell
voltage of about 0.80 V (for acid concentration of 75
wt%...

University of Tokyo). The UT-3 process is one of the
most studied thermochemical hydrogen production
cycles in the world. It should be noted that the UT-3
process is being developed for coupling to nuclear
power reactors. The reported cycle efficiency is in
the range of 40 to 50%. The cycle involves the
following four gas-solid reactions:
CaBr2 (s) + H2O (g) = CaO (s) + 2HBr (g)(1170 K)(1)
CaO (s) + Br2 (g) = CaBr2 (s) + ½ O2 (g)(700 K) (2)
Fe3O4 (s) + 8HBr (g) = 3FeBr2 (s) + 4H2O (g) + Br2 (g)(130 K) (3)
3FeBr2 (s) + 4H2O (g) = Fe3O4 (s) + 6HBr (g) + H2 (g)(810 K) (4)...

iii. Zn/ZnO process. This is the so-called "SynMet"
process developed at PSI. The process combines
ZnO-reduction and CH4-reforming within a solar
reactor. It consists of a gas-particle vortex flow
confined to a solar cavity receiver that is exposed to
concentrated solar irradiation. A 5-kW reactor has
been built at PSI and subjected to tests in a high-flux
solar furnace. Natural gas is used as a reducing agent
to process ZnO according to the following overall
reaction:
ZnO + CH4 = Zn + 2H2 + CO(5)
The process reforms methane in the absence of
catalysts and is being optimized to produce syngas
especially suited for methanol synthesis, and coproduction
of Zn and syngas avoids CO2 emissions
in the traditional carbothermal reduction of ZnO.
Even though the PSI process is the only system
developed for direct solar interface, it is not,
however, a typical TCWSC, per se. [continued]

etc, etc, etc. This seems to be a very active field.

Also
Technical Barriers

This project addresses the following technical barriers from the Hydrogen Production section of the Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technologies Program Multi-Year R,D&D Plan:

• V. High- and Ultra-High-Temperature Thermochemical Technology
• W. High-Temperature Materials
• Y. Solar Capital Cost

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:QW1h_s4sffcJ:www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iie2_raissi.pdf+%22high+flux+solar+furnace%22+effi ciency+cost+problems&hl=en

I would imagine that the reaction chambers don't last long. Zooby, did you spot anything that describes the actual cost of operating a system like this? I would think that there must be problems or we would be doing this on a large scale already. It would be nice to identify the difficulties faced with each type of technology. AFAIK we have found no magic bullet. Each energy option still needs work. I would hope that the grant money is starting to flow. If not yet, soon.

[Ivan Seeking]

It looks like the chemical processes have some competition.

ABSTRACT
The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Concentrating Solar
Power (CSP) Program is investigating the viability of
concentrating photovoltaic (CPV) converters as an
alternative to thermal conversion devices such as Stirling or
Brayton cycle engines that have historically been supported
by the program. Near-term objectives for CPV-related
activities within the program include development of inhouse
analytical tools and experimental facilities in support
of proof-of-concept demonstrations of high-concentration
CPV components and systems. SolTrace, a Monte Carlobased
optical simulation tool developed at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), has been used
extensively to analyze primary, secondary and receiver
optics associated with in-house and industrial CPV
configurations. NREL’s High-Flux Solar Furnace (HFSF)
has been adapted and used for preliminary testing of densepacked
arrays. Several research and development
subcontracts have been awarded for the development and
fabrication of components and systems. Hardware resulting
from these subcontracts has been delivered to NREL and is
undergoing evaluation at a CSP test facility located on
South Table Mountain, Golden, Colorado.[continued]

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31143.pdf
sorry, no html version available

[Ivan Seeking]

Also
Abstract A solar-thermal aerosol flow reactor process is being developed to dissociate natural gas (NG) to hydrogen (H2) and carbon black at high rates. Concentrated sunlight approaching 10 kW heats a 9.4 cm long x 2.4 cm diameter graphite reaction tube to temperatures ~ 2000K using a 74% theoretically efficient secondary concentrator. A pure methane feed has been dissociated to greater than 75% for residence times less than 0.1 s. The resulting carbon black is 20 – 40 nm in size, amorphous, and pure. A 5 million (M) kg/yr carbon black / 1.67 M kg/yr H2 plant is considered for process scale-up. The total permanent investment (TPI) of this plant is $12.7 M. A 15% IRR after tax is achieved when the carbon black is sold for $0.66/kg and the H2 for $13.80/GJ. This plant could supply 0.06% of the world carbon black market. For this scenario, the solar-thermal process avoids 277 MJ fossil fuel and 13.9 kg-equivalent CO2/kg H2 produced as compared to conventional steam-methane reforming and furnace black processing.[continued]

This brings up another issue. The separation of H2 can result in valueable byproducts that then can be used or sold. This can reduce the effective cost per KWH significantly. In some cases, one might even imagine that the H2 production becomes secondary to the value of the "byproducts".

A solar-thermal process (Figure 8) for co-producing hydrogen (1670 t/yr) and carbon black (5000 t/yr) has been conceptualized and costed (± 30%; percentage of delivered equipment cost).

More about this particular project:
The 16.6 MWth plant has been designed for the Phoenix, AZ (USA) area (0.38 solar capacity factor). Produced carbon black will be sold into the carbon black market (world market is 7.9 M metric tonnes (t)/yr) and produced hydrogen will be supplied to a hydrogen pipeline at a pressure of 2.2 MPa. The plant will dissociate 7300 t/yr of natural gas (NG). Any mercaptans and H2S in the NG feed will be removed using an upstream hydrogenation reactor and ZnO bed. The NG will be dissociated at 70% conversion per pass in a fluid-wall aerosol flow reactor operating at 2000 K. The reactor consists of 3 tubes - an outer quartz protection tube and two inner graphite tubes. The most inner graphite tube is porous and allows recycled H2 to flow radially inward through the pores (fluid-wall), thus, preventing the deposition of carbon black along the inside wall of the reactor assembly. The H2 and carbon co-products and unreacted NG are then cooled in an expanded cooling zone and passed through a baghouse filter to separate the carbon black. The H2 and CHx are then fed to a pressure swing adsorber where approximately 80% of the H2 fed is purified and either sent to the H2 pipeline as product or recycled as purge and fluid-wall gas to the reactor. The reactor is sized from the kinetics rate expression developed by Dahl et al [12]. The inner porous graphite tube is approximately 20 cm in diameter and 2.2 m long. It is compact because the reaction rate at these temperatures is so rapid. The heliostat field is estimated to be 29,000 m2 area per calculations described by Spath and Amos [10].[continued]

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:fxROmv920-wJ:www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/32405a15.pdf+%22high+flux+solar+furnace%22+efficie ncy+cost+problems&hl=en

[zoobyshoe]

I would imagine that the reaction chambers don't last long. Zooby, did you spot anything that describes the actual cost of operating a system like this?
Yes, the temperatures are pretty high, of course. I only found the one site that had an operational systen in place, and it is a "demonstration model" so to speak, not at work constantly producing hydrogen. They didn't go into cost.

The chamber where they dump the hot zinc into the water would probably not wear out that fast. The chamber where they heat the zinc to drive the oxygen off would suffer the most thermal stress.
I would think that there must be problems or we would be doing this on a large scale already.
I don't think the notion that if it were a good system, we would already be using it, is true. I didn't find out about this system till today, and apparently you hadn't either. This thread has pointed out that hydrogen minded people are all scattered all over the place each exploring different ways to skin the hydrogen cat. That being the case, someone like a Westinghouse who might champion one method or another, has too many choices.

A good idea can be held back, also, for stupid reasons. There is a problem with some beaches in San Diego where the sand is all being washed away. A guy went to the city council and suggested they smash up old glass bottles and jars and tumble them till all the sharp edges are gone, put it through a screen to collect all the sand sized pieces and put this on the beach. It would save the beaches and landfill space. The council decided such a thing would require an environmental impact study. He tried to convince them that glass would have no effect on the environment that the original sand didn't have because glass was just sand in the first place, but they wouldn't believe him.

Hs conclusion was something to the effect that politicians are most concerned with not making any mistakes. The best way to assure they don't make any mistakes is to make sure nothing gets done. My point: a good idea not already being implemented.

[zoobyshoe]

This brings up another issue. The separation of H2 can result in valueable byproducts that then can be used or sold. This can reduce the effective cost per KWH significantly. In some cases, one might even imagine that the H2 production becomes secondary to the value of the "byproducts".
Any byproduct that has a use is good. Any system for producing H2 that produces a byproduct that has to be gotten rid of, is, of course, a waste of time.

In the case of H2 being the byproduct, you'd have to have a convenient entity for them to sell it to, and it would have to be convenient for that entity to buy it.

[russ_watters]

Consider solar panels [edit: ie. photovoltaic]. Solar technology promises to get cheap very quickly, but until now it is quite possible that the complete energy costs to produce the panels was greater than the energy recovered over the life of the panel. Is it really that bad? For sure though, one of the toughest things to figure out in all of this is the economic implications - especially how fast/economically production of whatever new technology can be ramped up.

[Ivan Seeking]

Is it really that bad?

I don't know. I had a biology professor who used to rant about this subject constantly. According to him this was true and I have seen some information that supports this notion. I can only say that it might be true. We certainly have a large energy investment that must be considered but it may be that nobody really knows the exact number.

I know that if you go completely solar PV, you will spend about the same amount of money up front that you would have paid over the same period for public utilities.

When I last checked, a typical home in a solar friendly area lands between 40,000 - $50,000 [or more] to be completely "off the grid" via PVP. The panels have a lifespan of about twenty years. Also, not only does the frequent replacement of the batteries get expensive, but other equipment may fail thus adding to the maintenance costs. Damaged panels can be very expensive to replace. Note also that in addition to PVPs, either inverters are needed to create the AC - the preferred option - or the appliances have to be swapped for DC powered devices. Either option here is expensive.

For a completely electric home on the grid, if we assume an average monthly cost of $200 for energy, over twenty years we expect to pay $48000.

When I first confronted this issue of PVP for my personal use I realized the easy answer: No way am I paying for the next 20 years of energy today. This is a huge investment and I don't even know if I will live here that long.

[Cliff_J]

For a completely "off the grid" home you forgot to add the extra costs of heating/cooling factors typcially accomplished with insulation, thermal mass, and ground source heat pumps. In addition the new lighting systems carry a large upfront cost, extra capacity to offset lowered efficiency for regions with lower sunlight exposure, and with the standard lead-acid battery and its continual replacement every 3-8 years, we have a very difficult ROI to even consider on a large scale without massive incentives.

But a cheap to operate, reliable, high-output fuel cell or other storage/retrieval system would change this dramatically. So in my mind its a question of how long before the technology can catch up to equal the economics of existing systems. As I've posted before, I still think the use of bio-diesels and H2 with our existing ICEs make for a transition path more feasible than a jump to fuel-cells. If CA were to get all its planned H2 stations in place and have a critcal quantity of cars retrofitted to run H2, it could even provide economic motivation to the populus to retrofit more vehicles with taxes. Extended to power production, now we're only back to a H2 generation problem. Are we there yet? :smile:

Cliff

[zoobyshoe]

How much do the fuel cells cost?

[Ivan Seeking]

I still think the use of bio-diesels and H2 with our existing ICEs make for a transition path more feasible than a jump to fuel-cells.

If you look back at the original discussion about this linked on page one you will see that I make the same argument. Even though H2 combution comes in with a well-to-wheels efficiency [for our best options here] around 8%, IMO the low efficiency appears to be offset by the practical, economic, and immediate conversion potential of the millions and millions of existing ICE's. I also believe that hidden energy costs may exist in the production and disposal of fuel cells that makes H2 ICE's more energy competitive than the numbers seem to indicate.

BMW [I think it is] has produced a car that can switch from gasoline to H2 with the flip of a switch. Unless this system is cost prohibitive this strikes me as possibly an ideal approach to transitional technologies. The flexibility of this system addresses many of the practical "chicken and the egg" concerns of the H2 economy. A consumer can take advantage of a local, growing supply of H2 while maintaining a "failsafe" gasoline option at any moment. In the mean time, the market demand now exists to motivate the production of more H2.

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is some information. Direct pricing seems a bit elusive since so much is still experimental. Here is one decisive statement; presumably comparing KW to KW.
Creating affordable hydrogen fuel cells: Fuel cells are now ten times more expensive than internal combustion engines. The FreedomCAR initiative is working to reduce that cost to affordable levels.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-2.html

If we use this as a rule of thumb then I would expect a 10KW H2 fuel cell to cost somewhere around $5000. [This assumes that a 100HP ICE costs about $4000]. This is still DC power. Also, most homes now come with either a 22KW, or a 44KW service. I will snoop more later and try to find some direct pricing.

More good info:
Union of Concerned Scientists www.ucsusa.org.
2. American Methanol Institute www.methanol.org.
3. Fuel Cells 2000 www.fuelcells.org.
4. California Air Resources Board www.arb.ca.gov.
5. National Hydrogen Association www.hydrogenus.com.
6. Los Alamos National Laboratory (see below)
7. California Fuel Cell Partnership www.drivingthefuture.org.
8. The US Fuel Cell Council www.usfcc.com.
9. California Hydrogen Business Council www.ch2bc.org/.

A further source of reference materials is a book entitled "Fuel Cell Systems", Editor Leo J.M.J. Blomen, Publisher Plenum Press (www.plenum.com), ISBN: 0-306.44158-6. We also recommend a new entry level textbook titled "Fuel Cell Systems Explained" by James Larminie and Andrew Dicks, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester UK, 2000.

A comprehensive tutorial on fuel cells, written and designed for high school and college students, is available at Los Alamos National Laboratory's education Web site. The 36-page publication and the web site were featured in the July 30, 1999 issue of Science magazine, which recommended the guide as an introduction to the subject. The tutorial contains a detailed explanation of what a fuel cell is, focusing on the proton exchange membrane (PEM) technology. There is also information about other types of fuel cells and fuels, a brief overview of potential uses for fuel cells and information about areas in need of further research. It can be found at http://education.lanl.gov/resources/fuelcells/

Fact Sheet: Hydrogen Fuel: a Clean and Secure Energy Future
In his State of the Union address, President Bush announced a $1.2 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to reverse America's growing dependence on foreign oil by developing the technology for commercially viable hydrogen-powered fuel cells to power cars, trucks, homes and businesses with no pollution or greenhouse gases. The hydrogen fuel initiative will include $720 million in new funding over the next five years to develop the technologies and infrastructure to produce, store, and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel cell vehicles and electricity generation. Combined with the FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) initiative, President Bush is proposing a total of $1.7 billion over the next five years to develop hydrogen-powered fuel cells, hydrogen infrastructure and advanced automotive technologies.
Under the President's hydrogen fuel initiative, the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by fuel cells. The hydrogen fuel initiative complements the President's existing FreedomCAR initiative, which is developing technologies needed for mass production of safe and affordable hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles. Through partnerships with the private sector, the hydrogen fuel initiative and FreedomCAR will make it practical and cost-effective for large numbers of Americans to choose to use clean, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles by 2020. This will dramatically improve America's energy security by significantly reducing the need for imported oil, as well as help clean our air and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Background on Today's Presidential Action

• Fuel Cells are a Proven Technology: America's astronauts have used fuel cells to generate electricity since the 1960s, but more work is needed to make them cost-effective for use in cars, trucks, homes or businesses. Additional research and development is needed to spur rapid commercialization of these technologies so they can provide clean, domestically produced energy for transportation and other uses.

• The President's Initiatives Will Overcome Key Technical and Cost Barriers for Fuel Cells:
o Lowering the cost of hydrogen: Hydrogen is four times as expensive to produce as gasoline (when produced from its most affordable source, natural gas). The hydrogen fuel initiative seeks to lower that cost enough to make fuel cell cars cost-competitive with conventional gasoline-powered vehicles by 2010; and to advance the methods of producing hydrogen from renewable resources, nuclear energy, and even coal.
o Creating effective hydrogen storage: Hydrogen storage systems are now inadequate for use in the wide range of vehicles that consumers demand. New technology is needed.
o Creating affordable hydrogen fuel cells: Fuel cells are now ten times more expensive than internal combustion engines. The FreedomCAR initiative is working to reduce that cost to affordable levels.

• America's Energy Security is Threatened by Our Dependence on Foreign Oil:
o America imports 55 percent of the oil it consumes; that is expected to grow to 68 percent by 2025.
o Nearly all of our cars and trucks run on gasoline, and they are the main reason America imports so much oil. Two-thirds of the 20 million barrels of oil Americans use each day is used for transportation; fuel cell vehicles offer the best hope of dramatically reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

• Hydrogen fuel Will Help Ensure America's Energy Independence:
o Through the hydrogen fuel initiative and FreedomCAR, the federal government, automakers and energy companies will work together to overcome the technological and financial barriers to the successful development of commercially viable, emissions-free fuel cell vehicles that require no foreign oil.
o Hydrogen is domestically available in abundant quantities as a component of natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water.
o The Department of Energy estimates that the hydrogen fuel initiative and FreedomCAR initiatives may reduce our demand for petroleum by over 11 million barrels per day by 2040 - approximately the amount of oil America imports today.

• Fuel Cells Will Improve Air Quality and Dramatically Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
o Vehicles are a significant source of air pollution in America's cities and urban areas. Hydrogen fuel cells create electricity to power cars without any pollution.
o The hydrogen fuel and FreedomCAR initiatives may reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions from transportation alone by more than 500 million metric tons of carbon equivalent each year by 2040. Additional emissions reductions could be achieved by using fuel cells in applications such as generating electricity for residential or commercial uses.

• Hydrogen is the Key to a Clean Energy Future:
o It has the highest energy content per unit of weight of any known fuel.
o When burned in an engine, hydrogen produces effectively zero emissions; when powering a fuel cell, its only waste is water.
o Hydrogen can be produced from abundant domestic resources including natural gas, coal, biomass, and even water.
o Combined with other technologies such as carbon capture and storage, renewable energy and fusion energy, fuel cells could make an emissions-free energy future possible.

• The Hydrogen Fuel Initiative Complements President Bush's FreedomCAR initiative:
o In 2002, President Bush launched FreedomCAR, a partnership with automakers to advance high-technology research needed to produce practical, affordable hydrogen fuel cell vehicles that American consumers will want to buy and drive.
o The hydrogen fuel initiative will develop technologies for hydrogen production and distribution infrastructure needed to power fuel cell vehicles and stationary fuel cell power sources.

• President Bush's Budget Provides Strong Support for Hydrogen Fuel and FreedomCAR:
o President Bush proposes $1.7 billion in funding for the hydrogen fuel initiative and FreedomCAR over the next five years, including $720 million in new funding for hydrogen fuel.
o The President's FY 2004 budget request for hydrogen and fuel cell research and development and advanced automotive technologies through the hydrogen fuel and FreedomCAR programs is $273 million.
For more information on the President's initiatives, please visit www.whitehouse.gov

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks, Ivan.

That certainly pushes me toward the ICE.

The gas/hydrogen switching system seems also to make alot of sense, as a transitional technology.

[Ivan Seeking]

Economic Growth

Fuel cells and hydrogen have the enormous ability to create many new jobs as society begins the transition to a Hydrogen Economy. New employment opportunities will abound as manufacturers require additional workers to fabricate, design and test fuel cell systems, components and other related services. Other areas revolving around hydrogen production, storage and other related products will create additional jobs. A DOE study concluded that by meeting the demand, in California alone, for zero emission vehicles with fuel cells, over 700,000 new jobs would be created in the fuel cell manufacturing industry. A study conducted by the Wisconsin Energy Bureau has found that three times as many jobs would be created in the state by investing in renewable energy instead of fossil fuels.

http://www.fuelcellstore.com/information/coming_of_age.html

See also the main page below; again though prices are elusive... maybe the page was down for some reason. Prices should be available at this link.

http://www.fuelcellstore.com/

[zoobyshoe]

I'm seeing two whopper problems with the fuel cells for cars. One is this 5 minute warm up time, where the car has to be driven around in circles for five minutes before you can take it on the road. That alone would kill it. Warm up time killed the steam car.

The other is the cost of the cells. Ten times more than the comparable engine, and then you must pay for a specialized, extremely powerful electric motor on top of it.

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm seeing two whopper problems with the fuel cells for cars. One is this 5 minute warm up time, where the car has to be driven around in circles for five minutes before you can take it on the road. That alone would kill it. Warm up time killed the steam car.

I have never heard about this. Why is this needed?

[zoobyshoe]

I have never heard about this. Why is this needed?
Sorry. That's from something posted by Cliff in another thread. I got the threads mixed up and thought you had seen it.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars
Address:http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=284 Changed:1:28 AM on Tuesday, June 22, 2004

It's about halfway through this article.

[Ivan Seeking]

We asked him what the car was doing, going in circles around the lot, and his answer indicates the cars are still very much in a development stage, "This fuel cell is not very good at lower temperatures, so we do not want to start the fuel cell system on a public road." The car in question, Honda's V-3, is one of the most advanced hydrogen fuel cell cars in the world, but it can not run on the open road before being warmed up for at least 5 minutes. So much for a quick start.

Well, that stinks. I definitely see this as an issue.

[hitssquad]

If we use this as a rule of thumb then I would expect a 10KW H2 fuel cell to cost somewhere around $5000. [This assumes that a 100HP ICE costs about $4000]An estimation of the cost of a fuel cell does not seem to need to assume anything about the cost of an ICE; and ~130 HP gasoline ICE's right now cost ~$500 each wholesale. 10KW fuel cells for off-grid homes cost ~$100,000 retail right now. They are currently advertised for sale on websites that serve the needs of home-power people.

Gasoline seems to function adequately as a carrier for hydrogen and can be produced with present technology from water, carbon dioxide, and nuclear power. Why would you want to use a fuel cell?

[zoobyshoe]

Well, that stinks. I definitely see this as an issue.
It's only an issue if they can't easily overcome it. We don't know the actual details, but if it is merely a matter of the fuel cell itelf not operating well enough below a certain fixed temp, then it ought to be easily fixed with some sort of electrically operated preheater run from the standard 12 volt battery that would be recharged from a normal alternator as is already done. Actual preheat time would then depend on what temperature it was that day.

Could be they didn't already engineer this in because they didn't really realize what a problem they'd have without it.
You know the story about how Henry Ford didn't think to put a reverse gear in his first cars.

However, if it is more a temperature-independent matter of the cell needing to operate for a few minutes before the reaction starts taking place at a fast enough rate to supply suficient current to the motor, then it is definitely an issue.
-------
I wonder, too, if Honda is the only prototype fuel cell car that has this drawback.

I wonder what incentive any car company has to create and promote the fuel cell car? Is Honda really interested in promoting the fuel cell car? If they pretend to try, but make it look not possible, don't they avoid having to do a massive retooling, and retraining of workers, for as long as they can get away with it?

[LURCH]

An estimation of the cost of a fuel cell does not seem to need to assume anything about the cost of an ICE; and ~130 HP gasoline ICE's right now cost ~$500 each wholesale. 10KW fuel cells for off-grid homes cost ~$100,000 retail right now. They are currently advertised for sale on websites that serve the needs of home-power people.

Gasoline seems to function adequately as a carrier for hydrogen and can be produced with present technology from water, carbon dioxide, and nuclear power. Why would you want to use a fuel cell?

I have never heard of this there is a way to make gasoline?!

[Njorl]

I have never heard of this there is a way to make gasoline?!

The chemicals in gasoline a pretty simple. I think any collection of liquid state alkanes with at least 5 carbon atoms (and twice as many+2 hydrogen atoms) in the molecules is gasoline.

It might not be good gasoline, but that is another story.
Njorl

[Ivan Seeking]

An estimation of the cost of a fuel cell does not seem to need to assume anything about the cost of an ICE; and ~130 HP gasoline ICE's right now cost ~$500 each wholesale. 10KW fuel cells for off-grid homes cost ~$100,000 retail right now. They are currently advertised for sale on websites that serve the needs of home-power people.

Gasoline seems to function adequately as a carrier for hydrogen and can be produced with present technology from water, carbon dioxide, and nuclear power. Why would you want to use a fuel cell?


Would you mind providing some links? Also, in order to compare costs we need to compare retail to retail. Next, let me know where to get these $500 engines.

What is the energy cost of making gasoline?

[Ivan Seeking]

A related story that popped up today.

Scientists from around the world will soon gather to discuss how satellites could be used to address the world's energy needs by relaying solar power to Earth. But the U.S. government's decision to abandon research in 2001 could prevent the alternative energy source from ever seeing the light of day.

Solar panels on Earth are inherently limited in their ability to collect energy by two things -- the lack of direct sun at night and atmospheric interference from weather. NASA's now-abandoned Space Solar Power program would avoid these terrestrial impediments by launching satellites that would collect solar radiation and beam the energy to Earth. These satellite systems could each provide gigawatts of electricity, enough power for tens of thousands of homes...

...Pursuing solar power from space "should be part of our plan for energy independence," Smith said. He said that if NASA invested $10 billion in research over the next 10 years, the technology would likely become cost-effective enough to begin launching satellites. [continued]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,63913,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

[ivarf]

I found this discussion thread while looking for comments to the SciAm article referred to by Ivan Seeking. I found the article very enlightening, and a welcome supplement to most medias 'non-technological' promotion of the 'pollution free' car. I have so far seen a lot about hydrogen, but nothing about the article. Hoping to avoid reading all 6 pages and all the linked references: Has there come any corrections to the contents of the article? - Specifically related to the total emissions and the total energy efficiency for the compared powering alternatives.

The best solution w.r. to energy efficiency appear to be the ethanol fuel cell and the hydrogen fuel cell with hydrogen by steam reforming hydrocarbons (ca 22 %), followed by hybrid diesel/electric and gasoline fuel cell (ca 18 %). The poorest one is the hydrogen fuel cell with 'grid electric' power source. (ca 8 - 9 %).

W.r. to emissions the ethanol fuel cell is 'outstanding' (based on corn), otherwise the hydrogen fuel cell based on hydrogen from steam reformed hydrocarbons is significantly better than all the others..

The worst one w.r. to emissions (and worse than the gasoline IC engine!) is the hydrogen fuel cell with hydrogen from 'grid electric' power supply. I suppose these results depend on the source of the 'grid electricity'.

Although hydrogen is a clean energy carrier, it is not any replacement of fossil fuels.

[hitssquad]

in order to compare costs we need to compare retail to retail.Higher demand supports higher gas prices. When demand is high enough, it will support the price of nuclear gasoline derived from water and carbon dioxide.



Next, let me know where to get these $500 engines.Toyota gives one away free of charge in every Corolla it sells. Just visit your local Toyota dealer for a test drive and a peak under the hood at the $500 engine. Test driver must be 21 or over and have a valid driver's license. Offer not valid where void or prohibited by law.



What is the energy cost of making gasoline?That depends upon how thermally efficient your nuclear reactor is, and that further depends largely on what temperature your nuclear reactor runs at. The higher the temperature the nuclear reactor, ceteris paribus, the more efficient it will be at providing both electricity and industrial process heat. Efficiency is not really that important for terrestrial energy production, since terrestrial supplies of nuclear fission fuel are virtually limitless. But if efficiency is a goal, reactor temperature might be raised by the use of gas-cooling, exotic materials like ceramics, liquid reactor cores and vapor reactor cores.

In addition, if you are using a vapor reactor core, you could try for some extra efficiency by utilizing as a first-generator-stage, a magneto-hydro-dynamic generator (MHD). MHD's do not have any moving parts and operate at extremely high temperatures. The waste heat from an MHD stage is still so hot it can be used to power further stages utilizing more-quotidian generator technologies like gas and steam turbine cycles.

[Ivan Seeking]

Has there come any corrections to the contents of the article? - Specifically related to the total emissions and the total energy efficiency for the compared powering alternatives.

Welcome to PF Ivarf. :smile:

There are no corrections that we know about. Keep in mind that many of the references made come from other links provided throughout this and another linked thread.

The best solution w.r. to energy efficiency appear to be the ethanol fuel cell and the hydrogen fuel cell with hydrogen by steam reforming hydrocarbons (ca 22 %),

Not quite right. The ethanol fuel cell well-to-wheels efficiency is about 9%.

W.r. to emissions the ethanol fuel cell is 'outstanding' (based on corn),

Absolutely. This is nearly a zero emissions fuel chain added to a zero emissions vehicle.

The worst one w.r. to emissions (and worse than the gasoline IC engine!) is the hydrogen fuel cell with hydrogen from 'grid electric' power supply. I suppose these results depend on the source of the 'grid electricity'.

This is actually a little misleading in that it must assume coal fired electricity. What about solar powered electric, for example?

[hitssquad]

W.r. to emissions the ethanol fuel cell is 'outstanding' (based on corn),Absolutely. This is nearly a zero emissions fuel chain added to a zero emissions vehicle.Got tires (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2622951)?


Although we often focus on the components of tailpipe exhaust— toxic combustion particles, benzene, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxides and a host of other goodies — vehicles also release ... particles from paint, brake linings and tires. In addition, diesel exhaust from construction vehicles, the heat of the engines and road surface, road dust and toxic chemicals evaporating from the road surface contribute to the toxic soup, and the mass is kept suspended over the roadway and nearby neighborhoods by the continuous traffic..
Particulate pollution from gasoline engines is now so low, more particulate pollution is emitted from the tires than from the engine of the average currently-sold car.

[Ivan Seeking]

On the issue of electric-> H2-> electric, I wanted to quote a significant comment from the SciAm article.

All these facts add up to an argument not to use electricity to make hydrogen and then go back to electricity again with an under-the-hood fuel cell. but there is one strong reason to go through inefficient multiple conversions. They still make economic sense, and money is what has shaped the energy markets fo far.

[Kenneth Mann]

This is an interesting topic, especially in the fact that it is so popular. Its response is even greater than that of 'lock picking', and that is a good sign, especially when its importance to all of us is considered. I'd just like to try to bring together several of the important factors concerning this subject, most of which have already been discussed previously.

First, it was stated that there are several ways of deriving the hydrogen needed for automotive application, and several examples have been given, as stated by 'Ivan Seeking' I'd just like to point out another possible alternative which appears at the website (www.powerball.org) . I leave it to each person to evaluate its merits and feasibilities.

Second, I'd like to emphasize the several considerations that make adopting a "hydrogen economy" more than just a trivial exercise. These include:
a) Generating the hydrogen, a problem which many of you have discussed.
b) Transporting the hydrogen to points of ready access for motorists around the country. This is more than a trivial exercise. We have a very extensive infrastructure for transporting and dispensing our petroleum fuels, into which a great deal has been invested. In order to bring hydrogen to the same point, we'd have to figure just how it is to be done and then we'd have to invest the considerable amount needed to accomplish the task. When you get riight down to it, the economics of it will be the overriding factor.
c) Storing the hydrogen, both at the fueling stations and in the auto. Both the liquefied and the highly compressed means present comsiderable safety problems, and metal hydrides have weight, capacity and longevity considerations, not to mention the difficulties of putting the hydrogen into the auto that all of these methods pose.
d) Safety. This poses a considerable challenge all along the chain of suply. Note that this problem also exists with petroleum products; we've just learned to live with it.
The approach described at 'www.powerball.org' might be a possible approach to solving the problem, only time will tell.

Third, the old 'Internal Combustion Engine' should not be so readily discounted and thrown on the scrap heap with the 'Fuel Cell' as the only acceptable alternative. In doing so we make the 'perfect' the enemy of the 'good' and when we take this approace, we usually get neither. Remember, that the old ICE can run on hydrogen just as easily as can the Fuel Cell. Here we have a well developed product that we know that we can economically produce vs. one that is still in the 'development stage' with respect to consumer application. When I hear anyone say that this (or any other basic development program) will be simple, quick and not costly I know that I'm listeneng to someone who has never worked in such an arena. They are almost never quick, simple or inexpensive. ( Remember, that twenty years ago advocates said that a simple, effective and cheap high-capacity battery could be developed cheaply and quickly. It didn't happen. Or remember that fifty years ago we were told that safe and clean thermoneuclear power was just around the corner - - what happened to it? How long has it taken to develop a reliable Wankel, or an economical Gas Turbine with good throttle response characteristics? It's never as quick, cheap or easy as the advocates would like for us to believe.) The best estimates of a Fuel Cell car that the average person can afford is probably twenty years or more, especially if we insist on going directly to it without first developing 'bridge technologies' such as a dual-fuel car (which is better suited to the old ICE). It should be remembered that a hydrogen-powered ICE also emits no hydrocarbons (there's no carbon). Only oxides of nitrogen are a possible polluting by-product, and where hydrocarbons are not a consideration, means can be taken to greatly reduce the oxides of nitrogen. Also, as I recall, the problem with oxides of nitrogen stem mainly from their interaction with hydrocarbons within the atmosphere.

Fourth, the objections to nuclear power puzzle me a bit (though not completely). The French have an excellent record of safety and reliability with their systems. I can understand the aversion to having such an obviously dangerous plant (nuclear or otherwise) in the middle of a highly-populated area. (Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Bhopal are examples of the potential for disaster.) I don't see the objection however, for such plants if they are located in remote, isolated areas and that are safely designedand and protected from self-righteous 'nut-cases'. (Whether or not the designers and builders can be trusted is a concern, but once that is resolved there should be no problem.) I also don't see the problem with radioactive waste disposal. Before they were used, the radioactive substances already existed in nature - - just in a highly dispersed (diluted) form. They weren't 'created', they already existed, and such, would be if re-diluted and put back into nature.

Finally, I don't see the the point to the dispute over the term "Hydrogen economy". This appears to me to be just an argument over semantics. Through it all though, we should bear in mind that hydrogen is the most basic and abundant element in the universe.

Overall, i'm quite optimistic over the future of the use of hydrogen.

[zoobyshoe]

Powerball? What kind of peculiar agenda are you up to?

[hitssquad]

Powerball? What kind of peculiar agenda are you up to?It's a typo. Powerball.net is a hydrogen economy technology site.


The concept behind Powerball Technologies is to tame energy, (so to speak) and to store one powerful element - sodium (or sodium hydride) - in order to later get Hydrogen on Demand.

Powerball fuel pelletsTM store and produce hydrogen on demand. Each gallon of powerball fuel pellets produces hundreds of gallons of hydrogen upon contact with water on an as-needed basis. Powerball fuel pelletsTM offer a safe, compact, and inexpensive alternative to the delivery, storage and use of compressed or liquid hydrogen for a wide range of applications which require a clean source of hydrogen.

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks for clearing that up, hitsquad.

I went and read the powerball site, and was intrigued. They didn't mention how much heat you're talking about to turn the NaOH to the hydride, though. That is something I'd like to find out.

They also didn't mention that NaOH is common lye, and extremely caustic. As you're driving around using up your powerballs you are also going to be accumulating an increasingly full tank of lye. These lye holding tanks will need to be designed to withstand impacts and punctures, etc. The nice thing is that it gets recycled back into powerballs.

I wonder about the coating on the powerballs? Does that also get recycled or does it and up in landfills?

It seems that this particular method holds more promise than the others I read about for a hydrogen powered ICE car. I take it that there would be a system in every car for metering out some quantity of the balls, breaking the powerballs'coating and then dropping them in water or dripping water on them, The hydrogen released would be under pressure and easily routed to the engine.

At the filling station a double-nozzled hose might simultaneously add new water and pump out the liquid lye. The powerballs themselves might be fed into a hopper on the car from something like a large gumball machine :-) I don't know what they envision for all this, but it seems to have fewer bugs to work out than the other means of running cars on hydrogen.

The fact that recycling the lye back into sodium hydride seems to be accomplished by heat alone means it could be accomplished with solar power.

[zoobyshoe]

Here's a system they manufacture for using the powerballs:

The ISER ThunderVolt Powerball tank system is tailored for the use of Powerballs made by Powerball Technologies to generate hydrogen
Address:http://www.isecorp.com/powerball_tank.htm

[Kenneth Mann]

Sorry I gave the wrong address. I was a bit sleepy and didn't adequately check it. I'd hate to be sent to the other site too.

The Powerball company seems to be concentrating their initial efforts toward stationary power plants. They probably see that as the most immediate source of income. The process however, seems most promising in automotive applications, if someone can just stimulate that effort.

My estimate is that, to work in autos, an automated filling and purge system would be needed, so that the little old lady would never have to touch the apparatus. This could probably best be patterned after the types of automated feeding systems now used in car wash facilities where, in our case, the car is automatically carried up to the fueling point, and a dual hose system is connected automatically from beneath. First, the water/Sodium hydroxide solution would be dumped from one side of the auto's tank. Then when this is finished, fresh water would be pumped up fron the connection to the other side. Finally, the encapsulated Sodium Hydride pellets would be floated up into the tank (and simultaneously counted) through the same port through which the water was introduced. When the fueling is finished, the auto would be automatically disconnected and moved away from the fueling point. I tried sketching out such a tank, and it seemed workable.

Again, sorry for the screw-up with the web address.

[zoobyshoe]

I did some more poking around that site myself and found that they had worked out a rough plan for the filling station. The one other thing is that the polyethelene casings are also collected at the station, and these are apparently also recycled.

I actually sent them an e-mail asking about the temperature it takes to change the NaOH to NaH, but it was returned to me as undeliverable. Have they already gone out of business?

[Ivan Seeking]

Got tires (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2622951)?Particulate pollution from gasoline engines is now so low, more particulate pollution is emitted from the tires than from the engine of the average currently-sold car.

Doesn't this mainly affect people living within 300 yards of a freeway?

[Kenneth Mann]

I actually sent them an e-mail asking about the temperature it takes to change the NaOH to NaH, but it was returned to me as undeliverable. Have they already gone out of business?


I sent an email Today to :
matt@powerball.net

I too got the message returned, but for the following reason:

The users mailfolder is over the allowed quota (size). (#5.2.2)

Now, this may indicate that the company is out-of-business; or it may indicate that operation is temporarily suspended; or that "matt" is on vacation; that he is no longer with them; that he doesn't check his mail often; or that he gets a great number of emails, etc.

I might also add that I sent one to "Powerball" about a month age, which was apparently received by them, but never answered. I shall try "Thundervolt". Maybe they can tell us something about whether Powerball is still around, and if so, how to contact them.

[zoobyshoe]

I like the powerballs. I had a look at the page that explains the small standing system that is manufactured for them.

They have a page explaining that any of the light metals might be used to make them. I wonder which has the least dangerous aqueous form?

I do think they underestimate the inconvenience of distributing them compared to fossil fuels. Nothing compares to the fuel distribution pipelines.

I did some reading on the NaH itself. It is pretty dangerous stuff. Just coming into contact with moist air will start it generating hydrogen, which can catch fire. The fire has to be smothered, can't use water for that of course, and the NaH will continue to produce hydrogen so long as the original moisture is present.

Trucking them around would require the design of an arrangement where they would be prevented from abrading each others plastic coating off. That could be done many ways but in all cases you couldn't just pile them on top of each other in a situation where the weight of the top ones bore down on the lower ones. Better to be inspired by the notion of shipping eggs than anything else. For all the same reasons you can't have them spilling out onto the highway, abrading their coating off, if the truck overturns on a slippery road in a rainstorm. Some kind of double-hulled carrying compartment with shock absorbing material between the hulls comes to mind as what would be needed.

[Kenneth Mann]

There's a little bit more at:

http://www.isecorp.com/powerball_tank.htm

[Kenneth Mann]

I think the covering shell for the Powerball is more than just a coating. At least as I understand, the liquid NaH is injected into the shells, hardened and then welded shut. (Actually, they describe it both as coating and injecting and welding within a two paragraph span.) They also say that the Powerballs are then tested. This may also be suggested by the fact that a hydraulically operated knife mechanism is needed to split open the balls, as needed in the tank. If this is true, however, it means that recycling the polyethylene shell will be somewhat more of a concern. It would suggest however, that the Powerball is at least as safe in a car/truck as a tank of gasoline.

I also notice that they are now testing Lithium and Lithium Hydride for use in Powerballs. These promise considerably more energy content, per gallon, than Sodium Powerballs - - and more potential for problems in case of an accident. The cost will probably also be considerably higher. (Aircraft maybe?)

[zoobyshoe]

I think the covering shell for the Powerball is more than just a coating. At least as I understand, the liquid NaH is injected into the shells, hardened and then welded shut. (Actually, they describe it both as coating and injecting and welding within a two paragraph span.)
They describe it in a couple places as a "briquetting" process. The powder is mechanically compressed into the ball shape first, then the coating is added. I don't see how they could do it by injection. It seems the liquid NaH would have to be much hotter than polyethelene could withstand.
They also say that the Powerballs are then tested.
They are really only tested for airtightness. The coatings don't seem to be tested for thin spots that could be easily abraded away.
This may also be suggested by the fact that a hydraulically operated knife mechanism is needed to split open the balls, as needed in the tank. If this is true, however, it means that recycling the polyethylene shell will be somewhat more of a concern. It would suggest however, that the Powerball is at least as safe in a car/truck as a tank of gasoline.
It looks from the pictures that the balls are physically cut into two halves by the hydraulic knife. The power would be needed to cut through the compressed NaH, not the polyethelene shell.

The shells are recyclable, it says. They are collected from the tank with the NaOH when you go for a refill. They are returned to the processing plant where they are recycled into more powerball coatings.

I have this vague idea, though, that there is a limit to how many times you can recycle soft plastics. Can't remember the details.

I agree that the amount of balls that you would need to carry in a car or truck are no more dangerous than a tank of gasoline. I am concerned about transport of large quantities, though. I think that would require alot more safety precautions than they're sitting down and facing in their talk about distribution.

I also notice that they are now testing Lithium and Lithium Hydride for use in Powerballs. These promise considerably more energy content, per gallon, than Sodium Powerballs - - and more potential for problems in case of an accident. The cost will probably also be considerably higher. (Aircraft maybe?)
Yes, different applications, maybe.

[Ivan Seeking]

THE EDISON MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY CENTER (EMTEC) Request for Proposals (RFP) DEVELOPING IMPROVED MATERIALS TO SUPPORT THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY 1.0 SUMMARY EMTEC, an Ohio membership based 501(c) 3 not-for-profit organization, is soliciting proposals to identify and fund hydrogen generation or storage projects that have near term commercialization potential. Project proposals will be accepted for hydrogen production, storage, or processing with cross-cutting materials technology aligned with the barriers and targets identified in the US Department of Energy's Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technologies Program Multi-Year Research, Development and Demonstration Plan*. It is expected that all submitted proposals will show their ability to meet the EMTEC mission which is stated as follows: “Enhance industrial competitiveness and provide economic development and wealth creation by accelerating the development, deployment, and commercialization of materials technologies through collaboration with industry, academia, and government.” *

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/mypp 1

http://www.hydrogenus.com/EMTEC-EFC-RFP01A.pdf

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, a significant link that was missed.

The International Association For Hydrogen Energy
http://www.iahe.org/

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is an example of another approach to production.
Sustained Photobiological Hydrogen Gas Production upon Reversible Inactivation of Oxygen Evolution in the Green Alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii1
The work describes a novel approach for sustained photobiological production of H2 gas via the reversible hydrogenase pathway in the green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. This single-organism, two-stage H2 production method circumvents the severe O2 sensitivity of the reversible hydrogenase by temporally separating photosynthetic O2 evolution and carbon accumulation (stage 1) from the consumption of cellular metabolites and concomitant H2 production (stage 2). A transition from stage 1 to stage 2 was effected upon S deprivation of the culture, which reversibly inactivated photosystem II (PSII) and O2 evolution. Under these conditions, oxidative respiration by the cells in the light depleted O2 and caused anaerobiosis in the culture, which was necessary and sufficient for the induction of the reversible hydrogenase. Subsequently, sustained cellular H2 gas production was observed in the light but not in the dark. The mechanism of H2 production entailed protein consumption and electron transport from endogenous substrate to the cytochrome b6-f and PSI complexes in the chloroplast thylakoids. Light absorption by PSI was required for H2 evolution, suggesting that photoreduction of ferredoxin is followed by electron donation to the reversible hydrogenase. The latter catalyzes the reduction of protons to molecular H2 in the chloroplast stroma.[continued]

The complete text or PDF is available
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/1/127

[revere521]

water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, i wonder if that will matter.

[Ivan Seeking]

I have heard this objection made but I think when we factor in the evaporation from the worlds oceans each day, and evapotranspiration from plants on land, any contribution is insignificant.

[shonagon53]

The hydrogen economy will not come about soon, I think. There are too many problems and costs involved. The industry is not going to pay for the entire new infrastructure and governments aren't going to either.

There are many more interesting energy carriers than hydrogen. I'm thinking of these new aluminium batteries which are being developed.

With these batteries you can ship electricity cheaply, from say Iceland to Europe. It won't be done via hydrogen, which is dangerous, cumbersome, and requires an infrastructure and plenty of energy to be produced, stored and compressed.

Aluminium batteries are so much more easy to handle, so much safer and even a tad more efficient. They're also much cheaper to manufacture, they're 50 times lighter than the batteries we know today, and they store up to 100 times more energy.

My amateur prediction of a ranking of alternative energy carriers which will dominate the near future (as far as mobile applications are concerned, cars and ships):

1. aluminium batteries
2. biofuels
3. Wind (huge strato-kites for transoceanic shipping)
4. hydrogen - fuel cells


For the grid, nuclear energy will see a renaissance over wind and solar.

[Ivan Seeking]

Although you make some good points I do question the well-to-wheels efficiency of any battery technology. Ultimately this number reflects cost.

There are many more interesting energy carriers than hydrogen. I'm thinking of these new aluminium batteries which are being developed

The amount of energy produced by hydrogen per unit weight of fuel is about 3 times the amount of energy contained in an equal weight of gasoline, and almost 7 times that of coal. (FSEC)

http://www.hydrogenus.com/hydrogen-basics.asp

Hydrogen is an efficient carrier in liquid form. The compression and transportation is a problem though. I worked with He systems on MRI units and they constantly leaked.

Another practical problem with H2 is that it burns with an invisible flame. H2 fire detection systems are needed.

[zoobyshoe]

I've never heard of the aluminum battery. Do you have a link to a good site about them?

[shonagon53]

Hydrogen is an efficient carrier in liquid form. The compression and transportation is a problem though. I worked with He systems on MRI units and they constantly leaked.

Another practical problem with H2 is that it burns with an invisible flame. H2 fire detection systems are needed.

Hey, I must admit I'm a complete amateur, but I do read up on it though. :-) I agree that hydrogen is "the best" carrier when it comes to the energy it can store, in abstracto. But it's all the little problems at the side (infrastructure, safety, production and storage, etc...) which will delay its full market introduction to a considerable extent. I think new battery systems will be explored and revolutionized first. And once we get there, you can skip the entire infrastructure problem of the hydrogen economy.


[Excuse me for my bad English, I'm not a native speaker].

[shonagon53]

I've never heard of the aluminum battery. Do you have a link to a good site about them?


I hadn't either, and it's in its initial development stage. But it has received quite a lot of coverage so far.

When I read this, I was stunned:
"The Electric car of General Motors, EV 1, uses 736kg batteries giving a max. range of 145 km without recharge. A battery of 60 kg made with Europositron technology allows the EV 1 a max. range of 870 km without recharge."


Here's a link to the company which patented it:

http://www.europositron.com/en/index.html

If this this company is correct and succeeds in developing this battery, then it will bring about a revolution in energy storage and transportation for mobile applications.



[Excuse me for my bad English, I'm not a native speaker.]

[Cliff_J]

A battery with that level of capacity would change things dramatically within far more industries than mere transportation.

For storage of H2, my vote is in a hydride. Better density than even liquid H2, slow release, and resists combustion to the point where one company claims that a lit cigarette placed into the hydride filled with H2 will extinguish on contact. Besides a requirement to be heated to release the gas, this storage method seems so much more logical than cryo or high pressure systems that could exceed the dangers of gasoline and have poor exceptance (low production/high costs) or the hassle of the pellet with its return 'product'. But I guess that's why its called engineering and not guessing. ;-)

Motor Trend has a section on the H2 economy in their August issue. Both pro/con viewpoints are presented, and the cavets of the 'promises' being touted as well. A bit negative to H2 and quite positive on the development and production of hybrid cars that can run on natural gas. Logical but shortsighted in my opinion as I don't see how natural gas production can be cleanly scaled up to fit our energy needs as well as H2. Of course, no one really has addressed the scaling issue very well though...

I can't help be amazed at what advances we're making in some regards but yet how much we have left to do in fufilling our energy needs and the brutal infancy of the 'replacement' technologies. Maybe a communist state that pooled its resources and emphasized speed over absolute quality wasn't such a bad enemy after all in terms of spurring scientific development and allowing widespread adoption across a population? 'Cause now things like an H2 economy are a line item in a campaign press release instead of a public agenda.

Maybe I just need some sleep. :-)
Cliff

[Ivan Seeking]

'Cause now things like an H2 economy are a line item in a campaign press release instead of a public agenda.

Maybe I just need some sleep. :-)

Or maybe it is just getting so close that you can taste it. This makes the obstacles even more annoying!

[Kenneth Mann]

Did anyone hear the interview of T. Boone Pickens recently, in which he predicted that nationwide gasoline prices at the pump are predicted to go above $3.00 per gallon by year-end (and who can blame the producers when the world has become petroleum captives)? If not now, when do we act? Are Bush and Kerry listening, or is it just politics as usual?

KM

[Ivan Seeking]

Last night I watched a Nova [Scientific American Frontiers?] with Alan Alda. They do a nice job of highlighting a few leading H2 technologies. One funny comment made by Alda referenced the "clean laundry" smell of H2 ICE engines' exhaust.

It appears that Iceland will be a supplier of H2. Also, the solid state Hydrogen storage methods do look very encouraging! As one GM R&D, automotive engineer pointed out, if this Solid State H2 pans out this game will change very quickly. "Build them and they will come", he said.

[Ivan Seeking]

Here we go. You can watch the video online.

See the top of this page:
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1403/index.html

[Ivan Seeking]

I almost forgot the best quote from Alda: "That will be a thing that people do; smelling each others tailpipes". :biggrin:

[Kenneth Mann]

(Following are a few comments on the forst two pages of this string. If /when I get a chance, I'll continue.)

(Quote - Janitor: If it gets to where the average citizen of India and China lives the middle-class lifestyle of a typical Westerner, I shudder to think what our air and water may become.)

I agree, but barring some kind of global catastrophe, I think it is inevitable, and they have as much right to the "good life" as we do. We nooe do exert more effort to finding our way around the problem before it becomes a disaster.

(Quote russ_watters: Yeah, but there is of course a difference - an important one. For oil/coal the sun and earth already did 99% of the work to make it - with H2, we have to do all of the work to make it.)

Not really true! When the 'cracking' processes, etc, and other refining and environmental costs are taken into consideration, the production effort that goes into gasoline is considerable (unless you're lumping diesel fuel into that equation - - and it has its environmental problems too). The fact that we're only starting to look seriously at hydrogen derivation doesn't mean that it won't be cheaper in the near future (in fact there are some promising trends). The question here is "Who will be the 'winners' and who will be the 'losers' among the industry groups? In other words, who is going to fight this change 'to the death' to avoid losing their priviledged income sources?

(Quote Ivan Seeking: We don't do the work; nature does by solar powered chemical, biological, or even chemically powered mechanisms such as chemosynthesis. The same for fossil fuels.

Look guys, no one argues that H2 must be produced. AFAWK, we have no ready made reserves for H2 available as we do fossil fuels.)

It is true that hydrogen must be separated from its source compounds, but it is here and it is very, very plentiful (The oceans are full of it as are all of our hydrocarbon sources - there's nothing more abundant in the universe, and only a few elements here on earth). The question is that of 'extracting it' and at least, we don't have to drill down miles to get it in many cases. We also must remember that where "crude oil" comes in nature, gasoline does not; it still must be refined out, and that isn't free. The only real advantage to gasoline Today is the fact that its production infrastructure is 'in place', though not nearly to the level needed to meet Tomorrow's fuel needs, so why not make the 'new infrastructure' something else?

(Quote russ_watters: Politicians (the people driving the issue) for the most part completely ignore the issue of manufacturing the hydrogen. And that's a dealbreaker for the whole idea.)

Maybe not! There appear to be a few promising developments on the horizon - - if the vested interests don't succeed in killing them, and if the politicians are serious and not just playing politics as usual.)

(Quote Cliff_J: And I think this is the main stumbling block/selling point beyond the glassy eyed notion that H2 can work only with exclusive fuel cells produced by hand in the lab. The ICE is here to stay short-term, and the additional costs to equip/retrofit to FFVs that could handle H2 would be pretty insignificant long-term.)

I agree totally with this

(Quote Cliff_J: It'd be interesting to see which oil distribution companies make the journey or completely miss the target like the number of ice-box manufacturers and ice processing companies who embraced the refridgerator. (zero))

I think that they (almost) all will. It's of little consequence to them in the long run (for the most part) whether they make their profits from petroleum or hydrogen. The ones to watch are the drillers, the additive producers, the tanker companies and Opec. They'll fight to the death.

(Quote russ_watters: That would be a deal-breaker due to H2's efficiency as a storage medium when you recover the energy in an ICE vs fuel cells (30% vs 90%). I don't think there is any question that fuel cells can be mass produced - that they haven't is simply a matter of demand.)

I disagree. The practical efficiency of production model" fuel cells will not be nearly as high as the proponents would have us believe. Also the efficiency of the ICE need not be as low as are the present ones. The old Otto cycle is probably the lowest in efficiency of them all, but hangs on because it is so cheap to produce (mainly because of a century of experience). What we need to do is look at the 'continuous burn' engines rather than the, what I call 'pop pop' types. The continuous burn types are usually simpler, more efficient (once maturely developed), much longer lasting (a possible drawback to the producers, who want you coming back for more) and virtually always much cleaner. The most obvious of such types are the Brayton Cycle engines. A couple of intriguing developments of this type are the following:

http://www.almturbine.com/
http://www.starrotor.com/indexflash.htm

I'm also not so sure that the production fuel cell can be produced economically. Only time will answer that. I am relatively sure that in won't be soon (less than 15 years). We've been working on it for over 30 years now. We can all hope, but there are no guarantees.

(Quote Ivan Seeking: This would also mean that the transportation infrastucture for power, such as oil tankers, can eventually be [mostly] dismantled. Power can be produced semi-locally using the best options for each region.

National security benefits greatly. The political and economic value of energy autonomy is hard to even imagine.

The environmental benefits are obvious and vast.

Health benefits can be estimated but I don't have that information readily available. What is the health benefit, for example, in dollars, in eliminating fossil fuel powered vehicles?)

These alone would make hydrogen worth while.

[russ_watters]

I've often wondered why there aren't any Brayton cycle cars (except at Bonneville). Jet/gas turbine engines can be made small enough to run a normal car. I think its something that should be looked into.

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, if you watched the videos linked above you saw the T0 electric car. This thing does 0-60 mph in 3 seconds :surprise: by using Lithium Ion [laptop] batteries. I can only guess at the cost for that stack!!! Still, with a three hudred mile range and < 90 minute charge time, if the cost of the batteries can be checked, this car is quite practical.

Also, I saw turbine over electric being explored by MIT some years ago. I assume that someone is still playing with this approach. The stop and go requirements for autos make turbine impractical with a direct approach, but when coupled with electric the efficiencies were quite promising. I haven't heard anything about this for quite awhile though.

[Kenneth Mann]

Actually, a Brayton Cycle engine will be considerably smaller and lighter than a comparable Diesel/Otto Cicle engine. Also, Ivan Seeking is correct, the fatal drawback of the Gas Turbine (up to now, at least) has been the engine's highly inertial characteristic (after all it's basically a big flywheel). These are used extensively nowadays in aircraft, and increasingly so in boats, but in autos that lag (both in accelerating and decelerating) has been considered unacceptable to the the average driver. Both designs referenced above claim to have solved that problem, but Ivan Seeking is also correct in asserting that this point would be totally moot in a Brayton-electric hybrid. Where the engine operates best at a sustained RPM (any engine is relatively inertial, even the Otto Cycle), the electric motor is superior at incremental< ie. accelerative operation, so if you couple them additively, like in the Prius, you have the best of both worlds.

BTW, it isn't true that a gas turbine can't accelerate a vehicle well; its very high torque tells us that. The problem is that heretofore, it wouldn't accelerate itself well. The trick in a drag is to rev the engine beforehand, with the clutch out. Then when ready to go, engage the clutch. It'll suck the doors off anything that way, but I pity the poor clutch (and transmission) with that much torque hitting it. (If you remember your history, a turbine powered car ran about thirty-five years ago in the Indy 500, and ran away from everything else, until with about two laps to go, the transmission turned to silly putty.)

Back to the point, the ideal combination, as I see it would be a small Brayton cycle engine (a big one really wouldn't be needed) and a powerful electric motor (like the one in the T-Zero, that Ivan mentioned). Here, we could get the best of all worlds (almost); low pollution, light weight, good acceleration, very good fuel economy and great durability (it's figured that the Brayton cycle has about twice the life-span of the Diesel engine). And to put the icing on the cake, they'll burn just about anything (as long as it's unleaded), so it would be ideal for a hydrogen powered car. Then the only pollutants would be Oxides of Nitrogen (which occur whenever the air is heated), and water vapor; and since there would be no hydrocarbons, there would be no need to engineer the conflicting reguirements for reducing Nitrogen Oxides against those for hydrocarbons. Nitrogen Oxides could be reduced to an absolute minimum. This would be the ideal approach during the next twenty to thirty years, while we try to bring the cost and other factors of fuel cells to a point at which they are practical for use in the everyday car (and if we can't, we won't be up the proverbial creek without a paddle).

PS: If you're wondering about costs for the Lithium Ion cells, I heard somewhere that you can purchase a T-Zero somewhere (approximately) in the hundred thousand range.

[Cliff_J]

It is interesting to think why a high-efficiency turbine hybrid isn't more commonly discussed. It would suffer from public opinion and comparisons to Firebird I & II with the quirky 50's means of generating public interest. But otherwise it would be very well optimized, especially for large scale applications like trucking with constant loads for extended periods of time. High-torque and highly-dependable electric engines already exist in industrial applications so little development work would be needed there either. Make the transition an economical choice and watch out..... :)

The T-Zero has gotten a lot of publicity and is a really neat little car. I wouldn't call it practical though, it has the features of a touring motorcycle with two extra wheels.

Cliff

[russ_watters]

Most locomotives are diesel-electric too, aren't they? That seems like another place where gas turbine-electric would be better (though the batteries would be truly massive).

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, I believe that some modern trains already use turbine over electric.

Cliff, I meant the other practical. :biggrin: Your point is a good one. I was speaking strickly in terms of performance, range, and charge time.

[Kenneth Mann]

As promised, I'm including comments on (some of) the statements that have been made. Here are some for pages 2 and 3.


[Quote Ivan Seeking] "Even on fission my mind is still open."

I think fission will come around again once it has matured; if it can be produced econnomically, and if nothing even more economical and renewable comes along.

[Quote zoobyshoe] "Regardless, I'm very much less concerned about meltdowns than about disposal of the waste."

Remember where most of that stuff came from. Except for Plutonium, most already existed, quite radioactive, in nature. It simply took a lot of refining (at great cost) to get large enough concentrations to be useable. If necessary, we can force the users to "unrefine" the stuff (dilute it back to its original concentrations- which would still be a lot cheaper than the original refinement) and re-disperse it into nature (like the ocean floor). Of course, the users would protest loudly. They want to make as much profit as possible - - on the cheap; but if given no other choice, what would you wager that they'd do it?

[Quote Ivan Seeking] "According to the Scientific American article, in practice, electrolytic production of H2 results in a 22% efficiency- as required to create the H2. H2 production by steam reforming techniques can be over 60% efficient. "

If a renewable usage method, such as the "pellets" (ie. NaH + H20 => NaOH + H2) becomes feasible), a relative low sustaining production of Hydrogen might suffice, once there are enough of the pellets out there.

[Quote - russ watters] "I'm not sure about methane. Its certainly preferable to other forms of hydrocarbons, but it is still a hydrocarbon. Whether you convert it to hydrogen to burn in a hydrogen fuel cell, use it as methane in a fuel cell, or burn it, the chemical reaction is about the same and as a result, the pollution is about the same."

Precisely! - - - as is Natural Gas, which some bus companies tout as the "clean fuel". Presently only electricity and, for the most part, hydrogen fit that designation.

[Quote Ivan Seeking] " To me the significance is that we have passed the break even point. I would expect that for the first time, the economy of some energy options finally can compete with fossil fuels. This strikes me as being fairly significant. Also, we get a 63% reduction in ghg emissions."

- - and with many now predicting $3.00/gallon gasoline costs, I think it's slowly beginning to sink in.

Many of you [particularly Ivan Seeking] then go into promising new methods being studied for the extraction of Hydrogen. It sssounds very encouraging.

[Kenneth Mann]

I meant pages 3 and 4.

[Ivan Seeking]

Hybrid Turbine Electric Vehicle
...The vehicle will be a heavy class urban transit bus offering double the fuel economy of today's buses and emissions that are reduced to 1/10th of the Environmental Protection Agency's standards. At the heart of the vehicle's drive train is a natural-gas-fueled engine. Initially, a small automotive engine will be tested as a baseline. This will be followed by the introduction of an advanced gas turbine developed from an aircraft jet engine. The engine turns a high-speed generator, producing electricity. Power from both the generator and an onboard energy storage system is then provided to a variable-speed electric motor attached to the rear drive axle. An intelligent power-control system determines the most efficient operation of the engine and energy storage system.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1996/6000/6920v.htm

more hits from NASA:
http://search.grc.nasa.gov/query.html?qt=turbine+electric&col=grcint&qc=&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rq=0&rf=0&tx=0&go=Search

This looks to me like another great application for Hydrogen. :biggrin:

[Ivan Seeking]

..." the key to Hydrogen Solar's breakthrough is nanotechnology. Hydrogen Solar developed a nano-crystalline material that will dramatically improve the production of hydrogen by using solar energy to split water more efficiently into its elemental parts." ...This means the company is fast closing on the target 10 percent performance that has been recognized as the benchmark for commercially viable production on the open energy market.[continued]

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/bis-ucw092404.php

[russ_watters]

Ivan, that last one really looks like a hoax to me.

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, that last one really looks like a hoax to me.

Contact: Makeda Scott
makeda.scott@fco.gov.uk

[Ivan Seeking]

btw, I should have highlighted this the first time

In the coming months Hydrogen Solar plans to open a laboratory in Las Vegas. This will enable it to take advantage of the hot dry area for research. The company is currently recruiting scientists and engineers for the new lab.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-09/bis-ucw092404.php

[Ivan Seeking]

US vehicles would require a million wind turbines, economists claim.

Wind power might be green, but it is unlikely to power the hydrogen revolution.

Converting every vehicle in the United States to hydrogen power would demand so much electricity that the country would need enough wind turbines to cover half of California or 1,000 extra nuclear power stations [continued]

http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041004/full/041004-13.html

Obviously I think their assessment is much too pessimistic. It shows a lack of understanding of the state of the industry and developing technologies. No one serious about this claims that we can convert the entire country to wind produced H2. However, I think the size of the problem we face is made clear.

[russ_watters]

Its all about the assumptions. 1000 extra nuclear power stations is probably what you would need to cover the energy used by cars and existing fossil fuel power plants.

[Cliff_J]

Although I agree the estimates are pessimistic, I think the idea of highlighting how large a problem the complete tranformation to a H2 economy is warranted.

Maybe a X-Prize or DARPA Grand Challenge style event that includes green production and realistic economics would be a great way to focus some of the efforts of people working on the technologies and gather publicity. Sure the numbers could be twisted but a competition aimed at replacing the average consumer transportation needs without penalty seems like a worthwhile cause.

Figure a mid-sized SUV at 2 tons with a retail price of $25,000 (including H2 generation equipment) with a weekly range of 300 miles and its a plausible goal. To make it a challenge worthy of a large prize, how about if a community like say Boulder or Portland wanted to retrofit existing cars and switch over with an ROI that could offset the initial cost after 5-10 years?

That seems about as impossible near-term as the X-Prize did 10 years ago.

Cliff

[Zantra]

Not sure if this has been posted, but:

http://www.time.com/time/europe/specials/ff/trip1/hydrogen.html


By the end of 2002, three state-of-the-art DaimlerChrysler buses with hydrogen-powered fuel cells will start plying the streets of the capital, Reykjavik, with refueling available from a Shell service station. The vehicles will be quiet but above all clean — fuel cells produce electricity by electrochemically mixing hydrogen and oxygen; the only waste product is water vapor. The plan is to gradually switch the nation's 180,000 vehicles — first buses, then cars, followed by its 2,500 fishing vessels — to hydrogen power

[Ivan Seeking]

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has unveiled his state's first hydrogen refueling station in Los Angeles. The official says it marks the start of a transition as cars convert from gasoline to hydrogen fuel cells

..."We will not just dream about the hydrogen highway," he said. "We will not just dream about the hydrogen fueling stations. We will not just dream about the hydrogen cars. We will build it." [continued]

http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200410/200410230010.html

[Chronos]

I think a hydrogen economy is inevitable. It is the only solution that makes sense in the long run. Waiting until oil reserves are depleted seems a bit short sighted. Other, more valuable uses exist for these resources. The transition is obviously not going to take place overnight. Clearly, it will take decades. Electrical power was the same way. People who lived away from population centers had to wait years to get hooked up. There are other obstacles as well. The technology for hydrogen production is potentially simple enough that people could afford to own household hydrogen plants; which would not necessarily bode well for the oil or power industries.

[CharlesP]

Getting all that hydrogen is a near insurmountable problem. Since hydrogen is really just an idle wheel and not the real source of energy I think we should name the economy after the real source of energy if it ever shows up. There will likely be all kinds of nice technologies after we have all frozen to death in the dark.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

what about alcohol? ethanol and methanol are a lot cleaner burning than regular gasoline and can be manufactured. today's cars could run on it without major modification and it can be produced with little to no impact on our current fossil fuel usage for electricity generation.

the biggest problem notable here is that the USA lacks the major biological sources to manufacture ethanol. but that's not any different from importing foreign oil. brazil already uses ethanol in massive quantities as a secondary fuel source. hydrogen is far more ineffecient to manufacture than alcohol, and i expect it will be a very long time in coming, if it ever does.

as for electricity: NUCLEAR. instead of burying all the nuclear fuel for our atomic weapons we should be incorporating it into nuclear power plants. the USA has had only ONE (1) major malfunction of a nuclear power facility, and to my knowledge no one was injured, and it was 20 or 30 some odd years ago.

also, i think there's a big picture here that most of us are leaving unsaid. we couldn't relieve our dependence upon fossil fuels with just cars. we also need to focus on its other uses. we can generate electricity with nuclear power but where are we going to get petroleum jelly? propane? lubricant oil? there's a million biproducts of petroleum that we tend to ignore when we bring up the subject, and developing replacements for those as well is a daunting task at best.

[shrumeo]

didn't read all the posts, but I'll just add this

all this talk about renewable resources is fine, we should be looking for something to replace fossil fuels

BUT

it's a question of volume

we'll never ever ever in a million years get the volume of power we get from fossil fuels out of hydrogen, or biomass, or solar, or anything else we have today

if we can get the power we get from fossil fuels from any other source it will be nuclear (fusion)

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

didn't read all the posts, but I'll just add this

all this talk about renewable resources is fine, we should be looking for something to replace fossil fuels

BUT

it's a question of volume

we'll never ever ever in a million years get the volume of power we get from fossil fuels out of hydrogen, or biomass, or solar, or anything else we have today

if we can get the power we get from fossil fuels from any other source it will be nuclear (fusion)


i agree that nuclear power is by far the most readily available form of energy in mass quantities, but i don't necessarily believe that it's fusion. right now fusion power is highly unstable and unpredictable. meanwhile current fission power plants are safe and clean and can put out more power than a similarly sized coal power plant. unfortunately nobody (investors) wants to touch nuclear power because of their uneducated worries.

whether it be hydrogen, ethynol, fission, fusion, solar, wind whatever sources of energy we are going to use in the future, our FIRST step should be in educating the general public. we wont get anywhere if we dont know where we're going.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3997249.stm
very interesting topic, fusion power. perhaps i'm wrong and there is potential for it in the near future.

[shrumeo]

I have never heard of this there is a way to make gasoline?!

One way is through Fischer-Tropsch synthesis:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/F/FischerT1.asp

[hitssquad]

Apparently, gasoline can also be made from water and a carbon source such as carbon dioxide. Prolific energy commentator Graham Cowan (http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html) dubbed gasoline thus manufactured with the manufacturing energy supplied by nuclear reactors nuclear gasoline.

[russ_watters]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3997249.stm
very interesting topic, fusion power. perhaps i'm wrong and there is potential for it in the near future. Well, it seems awfully optomistic, but even then it says its planned as a 20-year project and "Final stage before full prototype of commercial reactor is built." So even if it works as advertised, we're still several decades from commercial fusion power.

[Ivan Seeking]

Scientists Argue Hybrids Make More Sense Than Hydrogen Cars

..."The things that matter here are energy security, climate change and air pollution," said David Keith of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. "Focusing on fuel-cell cars makes no economic sense for any of these goals." [continued]
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Hybrid/story?id=266883&page=1

[Seafang]

In other words, burn more fossil fuels to make hydrogen? How does that help anything? Certainly not - I'm just not sure what hydrogen has to do with anything in this context. I think you probably understand the issue, but to the general public, they hear the politicians talking about a hydrogen economy and picture the hydogen materializing at the gas pump. Politicians (the people driving the issue) for the most part completely ignore the issue of manufacturing the hydrogen. And that's a dealbreaker for the whole idea. Its like talking about landing a man on the moon without first discussing how to get one in orbit around earth.

Realistically if Bush or Kerry (both have picked up the issue) succeed in getting a million hydrogen powered cars on the road in 10 years and a hundred thousand hydrogen fueling stations, where is that hydrogen going to come from? Realistically. My bet is it'll come from hydrogen manufacturing plants that either take their coal-fired electricity straight from an already overloaded grid or make their own power using oil-fired gas turbine generators. Net result: more pollution, more dependancy on domestic coal and foreign oil, and a bigger energy crisis.

Russ, has hit a raw nerve on this subject. Hydrogen is already manufactured from Hydrogen ores by industries that supply those who need hydrogen in industry. These people are not economic idiots, so it is a sure bet that they are producing that hydrogen in the most economically efficient processes currently known. the history of the chemical industry is replete with examples of new processes being developed and old suppliers being supplanted by more efficient ones.

So if ANY of the solar powered renewable bio-hydrogen processes were even remotely viable economically they would be in use already. Economic viability in a competitive market usually means energy efficient, since the cost of energy to process things is a big factor in the economics of it. So the likelihood of any new hydrogen process replacing the present methods which probably get it by processing natural gas; is slim to none.

And yes sea water is about as low on the stored chemical energy food chain as it is possible to get.

If extracting hydrogen from water was economically viable at all, then by inference it should be just as practical to extract another fuel; namely carbon, from the abundant supplies of it in the atmosphere, or the oceans, Doing that would make the whole CO2 problem moot. Not likely to happen, nor is any major shift to hydrogen.

Hydrogen vehicles such as inner city buses may make a lot of sense from a local air pollution point of view but for the mass of transportation needs it is a pipe dream; but one that Bush threw out there so the environmentallists could not say he was anti-environment. Now it is up to THEM to try and make a hydrogen economy real.

The practicality of increasing electricity generation capacity to the point where either hydrogen fuel cell or pure electric cars could totally replace the internal combustion engine, is just too silly to contemplate. We have enough problems now with regulations just getting enough electricity for electricity needs. The Nuclear opponents aren't going to sanction any massive swing to nuclear specially when it becomes apparent that breeder reactors will be necessary to make that long term viable. Fat chance in today's terrorist strewn world.

There is one other nasty problem with that lovely hydrogen picture. It also requires lots of additional energy just to get it into a storable form. The energy cost of gas compression, or the materials cost of metal hydrides, makes hydrogen a lot less pretty. Then there is all that 'clean' water vapor that will be emitted; well I suppose you could condense the water and save it in an onboard 'ungas' tank. But then water vapor is also a green house gas, and in fact is the major green house gas with by far the most influence on the environment and climate. Renewable (solar) energy sources sound like a great idea, until you realize how poorly concentrated they are. Surely they have to be used in niche situations where they make sense, as does every other energy source we have, but so far there are few real alternatives to hydrocarbons.

Arguably it would make much more sense to use the hydrocarbon fuels as we do now, and recycle the carbon. but even that only makes sense if you believe that CO2 is a significant problem to the environment. I for one do not believe it plays much role at all. With CO2 being 0.037% of the atmosphere, and water vapor as much as 4% at times, I think the problem of thermal flux balance of the earth is not dependent on CO2 to any great extent compared to water.

[Ivan Seeking]

Iceland is going 100% H2 right now. They estimate that after satisfying their own needs (5%), they can sell the other 95% of the viable geothermal energy as H2. So for starters we need to look at the new energy "reserves" that can be transported as hydrogen, that would otherwise be wasted.

Then there is the nagging problem that it is in everyone's interest to stifle the demand for oil. Besides, sooner or later we will have no choice.

If extracting hydrogen from water was economically viable at all, then by inference it should be just as practical to extract another fuel; namely carbon, from the abundant supplies of it in the atmosphere, or the oceans, Doing that would make the whole CO2 problem moot. Not likely to happen, nor is any major shift to hydrogen.

How do you come up with that analogy? I'm quite sure that statement cannot be defended.

[hitssquad]

Iceland is going 100% H2 right now. They estimate that after satisfying their own needs (5%), they can sell the other 95% of the viable geothermal energy as H2.Iceland is an island. How might this H2 be delivered?



it is in everyone's interest to stifle the demand for oil. ...sooner or later we will have no choice.Futures markets either correctly or incorrectly reflect the current value of future scarcity. Thus you are concluding that oil futures are underpriced right now, and further thus a good investment; correct?

[Chronos]

Hydrogen is more viable and less expensive than many may think. A number of methods are possible which could produce the hydrogen energy equivalent of gasoline for about the same price... or even less. Of course you still have the infrastructure hurdles, but, this need not take place overnight and could be solved more quickly than generally thought. Some informative links:


hydrogen from methanol
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Jun02/NPO19948.html

hydrogen from coal
http://www.nuclear.com/Energy_policy/Coal_gas_news.html

hydrogen from nuclear power
http://www.businessreport.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=291054

hydrogen from sunlight
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/09/14/6900043_Solar_Hydrogen/index.html

hydrogent from wind
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=502

fuel cells
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-03s.html

Technical issues of a hydrogen economy
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/1.html#pagetop

[Seafang]

Iceland is going 100% H2 right now. They estimate that after satisfying their own needs (5%), they can sell the other 95% of the viable geothermal energy as H2. So for starters we need to look at the new energy "reserves" that can be transported as hydrogen, that would otherwise be wasted.

Then there is the nagging problem that it is in everyone's interest to stifle the demand for oil. Besides, sooner or later we will have no choice.




How do you come up with that analogy? I'm quite sure that statement cannot be defended.

Well it is very easy to defend Ivan. Hydrogen, when burned yields water plus some energy. Water, after the input of at least as much energy, restores the hydrogen which can be burned again or run through a fuel cell.

By the same token, carbon can be burned to yield carbon dioxide and energy. Carbon dioxide, after the input of at least as much energy restores the carbon which can then be burned again.

In both cases the element is being used as a source or transport means of energy, but you need some other source of energy for the recycling process. That other source of energy could of course be used instead of the hydrogen or carbon, so why bother with the wasteful processes or recovering hydrogen from water, or carbon from carbon dioxide.

If it is technically viable to obtain hydrogen from water to use as a source of energy, it is equally technically viable to start form the abundant CO2 and get carbon fuel from it.

Both of course don't make any sense if what you want is additional sources of energy over and above those which we already have. When the fossil fuels oil and natural gas are gone where will you get all the energy to create hydrogen ? And if you have such a source of additional energy why waste it on what is at best a zero sum game, but in practice is a massive energy wasting scheme. Or doesn't the prohibition against perpetual motion apply to you?

[Seafang]

Hydrogen is more viable and less expensive than many may think. A number of methods are possible which could produce the hydrogen energy equivalent of gasoline for about the same price... or even less. Of course you still have the infrastructure hurdles, but, this need not take place overnight and could be solved more quickly than generally thought. Some informative links:


hydrogen from methanol
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Jun02/NPO19948.html

hydrogen from coal
http://www.nuclear.com/Energy_policy/Coal_gas_news.html

hydrogen from nuclear power
http://www.businessreport.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=291054

hydrogen from sunlight
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/09/14/6900043_Solar_Hydrogen/index.html

hydrogent from wind
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=502

fuel cells
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-03s.html

Technical issues of a hydrogen economy
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/1.html#pagetop

So we can get hydrogen from ethanol; where do we get the energy to create the ethanol in the first place; current methods of ethanol production take more energy to produce than you get from the ethanol.

Hydrogen from coal; when you remove hydrogen from coal you get a rather nasty effluent called soot; what are you going to do with all that soot other than burning it too for additional energy; why not just burn the coal itself.

Hydrogen from nuclear power; just in case you haven't noticed, all the nuclear power on earth is currently being used to make electricity for people who need electricity. Attempts to generate more nuclear power have been stopped by environmentallists who don't like nuclear energy.

Hydrogen from sunlight; I don't see much hydrogen in sunlight; maybe they are using solar energy in some form to generate hydrogen; why not use that energy from sunlight for what you want energy for.

Hydrogen from wind; also never seen much hydrogen in the wind; perhaps the wind is being used to generate mechanical power or even electricity. Why not use that mechanical power to do work or use the elctricity for people who want electricity.

As I said if any of these schemes for making hydrogen were technically or even economically viable, they would be in use today generating industrial hydrogen. they aren't and they aren't.

It's a Ponzi scheme !

[russ_watters]

Futures markets either correctly or incorrectly reflect the current value of future scarcity. Thus you are concluding that oil futures are underpriced right now, and further thus a good investment; correct? Interesting assessment - I'd think that due to today's political climate, the future scarcity is probably overcompensated for in the market price. I'll be right back.... :wink:

[brewnog]

As I said if any of these schemes for making hydrogen were technically or even economically viable, they would be in use today generating industrial hydrogen. they aren't and they aren't.


To some extent I agree with you, and indeed as you state, some of those methods for 'mass' production of energy are not as desirable as others, and you're right to be asking "we run cars on hydrogen, so what? We still have to get the energy from somewhere."

However, you're missing the point. The key thing about hydrogen is not that it's going to be the ultimate source of energy, but an extremely efficient method of storage and distribution.

I would like to see a working comparison of the losses involved in transmitting an amount of energy over a set distance using high voltage power lines, against the energy required (in terms of trucks, trains, whatever) to transport the same amount of energy, in hydrogen form, over the same distance. Anyone?

[Chronos]

So we can get hydrogen from ethanol; where do we get the energy to create the ethanol in the first place; current methods of ethanol production take more energy to produce than you get from the ethanol.

Hydrogen from coal; when you remove hydrogen from coal you get a rather nasty effluent called soot; what are you going to do with all that soot other than burning it too for additional energy; why not just burn the coal itself.

Hydrogen from nuclear power; just in case you haven't noticed, all the nuclear power on earth is currently being used to make electricity for people who need electricity. Attempts to generate more nuclear power have been stopped by environmentallists who don't like nuclear energy.

Hydrogen from sunlight; I don't see much hydrogen in sunlight; maybe they are using solar energy in some form to generate hydrogen; why not use that energy from sunlight for what you want energy for.

Hydrogen from wind; also never seen much hydrogen in the wind; perhaps the wind is being used to generate mechanical power or even electricity. Why not use that mechanical power to do work or use the elctricity for people who want electricity.

As I said if any of these schemes for making hydrogen were technically or even economically viable, they would be in use today generating industrial hydrogen. they aren't and they aren't.

It's a Ponzi scheme !Read the links before leaping to conclusions.

[hitssquad]

hydrogen is ... going to be ... an extremely efficient method of storage and distribution.Graham Cowan has pointed out numerous times on Know Nukes (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes) that indicators seems to be pointing in the opposite direction. This is basically why Cowan proposes that boron technologies, instead of hydrogen technologies, be developed to replace fossil fuels as energy carriers:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

One could not put a hydrogen or hydrocarbon tank right next to the engine, lest it get heated and build up excessive pressure. But there's no harm if a bin full of boron bits gets warm.
a hydrogen vehicle's fuel reservoir system is more massive and much more complex than a gasoline tank, in part because of hydrogen's superlative bulk
Hydrogen at Sea
Hydrogen as fuel is lighter than petroleum, lighter even than boron, and has a nonreturning oxide. Water vapour can be dumped anywhere and hydrogen generating plants can find new water to split, or at least different water, almost anywhere. Hydrogen isn't explosion-proof like boron, but it must beat hydrocarbons and boron in the efficiency race, must it not?

Actually it comes dead last. Liquefaction energy is the culprit, and it's not a seven percent loss, it's about half. A boron carrier could go around the world the long way and still beat a hydrogen carrier. So could a carrier of plastic made from air, water, and solar energy.
Consider two power plants. Each turns 20 or 30 gigawatts of heat into 10 GW of chemical fuel. This is larger than usual for electric power plants today but an ordinary size for oil refineries.

One makes hydrogen, the other makes boron. If the boron plant has no takers for a couple of weeks, it can stack boron outside, perhaps on pallets, 40 acres six feet deep. Rain won't hurt it.

The hydrogen plant might also store two weeks' production, not, of course, in contact with the elements -- earth and water are OK, but definitely not air or fire -- but perhaps as the inflating gas in a kilometre-wide gas supported tent 250 m high at the centre. This is about five times more area than the pallet field, and seems certain to cost more per unit area.
How big are the tanks, really? Answers are given here in terms of litres per three gigajoules, not one, because 1 GJ of fuel energy propels a typical car only about 300 km, and 1,000-km range is not very unusual:

Hydrogen - 373.8
Boron - 139.9

The 140-L entry for boron is 108 L for ash, 32 L for fuel. This is based not just on tripling the data from Ash Volumes and Boron the Dense but on multiplying them by further factors of roughly 1.5. These extra adjustments allow for imperfect packing of solids.
Below are the various light oxophiles' volumes in litres per gigajoule of oxidation potential energy.

Hydrogen - 124.59
Boron - 7.82

[Ivan Seeking]

Read the links before leaping to conclusions.


Yes please. There are plenty of links posted with answers to most initial questions and objections that our readers may have. Please review this and the original thread in the physics forum to learn the basics.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4127&page=1&pp=15

[shrumeo]

Graham Cowan has pointed out numerous times on Know Nukes (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes) that indicators seems to be pointing in the opposite direction. This is basically why Cowan proposes that boron technologies, instead of hydrogen technologies, be developed to replace fossil fuels as energy carriers:
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
Didn't they already scrap boranes as rocket fuels back in the sixties because the combustion products are solid and there wasn't much of a way around it?

You end up with borates, which you then have to dispose of, unless there is a new boron fuel that has come out.

Well it is very easy to defend Ivan. Hydrogen, when burned yields water plus some energy. Water, after the input of at least as much energy, restores the hydrogen which can be burned again or run through a fuel cell.

By the same token, carbon can be burned to yield carbon dioxide and energy. Carbon dioxide, after the input of at least as much energy restores the carbon which can then be burned again.

In both cases the element is being used as a source or transport means of energy, but you need some other source of energy for the recycling process. That other source of energy could of course be used instead of the hydrogen or carbon, so why bother with the wasteful processes or recovering hydrogen from water, or carbon from carbon dioxide.

If it is technically viable to obtain hydrogen from water to use as a source of energy, it is equally technically viable to start form the abundant CO2 and get carbon fuel from it.

Both of course don't make any sense if what you want is additional sources of energy over and above those which we already have. When the fossil fuels oil and natural gas are gone where will you get all the energy to create hydrogen ? And if you have such a source of additional energy why waste it on what is at best a zero sum game, but in practice is a massive energy wasting scheme. Or doesn't the prohibition against perpetual motion apply to you?

Unless we come up with a way to mimic photosynthesis, it takes way more energy to reduce carbon dioxide than it does to split water.

Using methane as an example (from: http://www.webchem.net/notes/how_far/enthalpy/enthalpy_of_combustion.htm )

CH4(g) + 2O2(g) -> CO2(g) + 2H2O(g) DHq = -882 kJ mol-1

That means to go the other direction you need to put in 882 kJ mol-1

Using a fuel cell as the other example (from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html )

H2(g) + O2(g) -> 2H2O(l) DH = -285.83 kJ mol-1

The opposite reaction would need an input of 285.83 kJ mol-1.

Since the entropy terms would probably be simliar, I'm sure the total free energy change is similar to these also. You get a lot of energy out of hydrocarbons, but to put all that energy back in is just too much for current technology to do cost effectively (I guess). So far, doing it with water to supply the whole world with power is still quite out of reach (I think).

[shrumeo]

Hydrogen is more viable and less expensive than many may think. A number of methods are possible which could produce the hydrogen energy equivalent of gasoline for about the same price... or even less. Of course you still have the infrastructure hurdles, but, this need not take place overnight and could be solved more quickly than generally thought. Some informative links:


hydrogen from methanol
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Jun02/NPO19948.html
But you are still working with fossil fuels or their derivatives. You still have to dig things out of the ground and "burn" them. This is not a renewable resource.

hydrogen from coal
http://www.nuclear.com/Energy_policy/Coal_gas_news.html
This is just saying there is a way to extract hydrogen from another fossil fuel that you have to dig out of the ground and burn. It doesn't reduce CO2 emissions, it just saves the hydrogen.

hydrogen from nuclear power
http://www.businessreport.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=291054
If we are only going to use hydrogen fuel cells in vehicles then this might be a good way to make the hydrogen. Hydrogen fuel cells still beat batteries when it comes to mileage, so it might be a good alternative to just plugging your car up to the nuke plant.

hydrogen from sunlight
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/09/14/6900043_Solar_Hydrogen/index.html
You know all the problems with solar anything. First the sun has to out. Second, the total efficiency is terrible with current technology. You'd have to have solar arrays the size of Kansas to provide enough H2 for the US.
hydrogent from wind
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=502
Again, the problem is that you need the wind to be blowing. Not everywhere is windy, and you'd need a windfarm the size of Massachusettes to make enough H2 for the US.

[Seafang]

In the other thread I posted about the process of dissociating water into hydrogen and oxygen by high temperature created with a parabolic mirror from sunlight. Efficiency is moot with this, since the energy is free. The problem, they say, is developing materials for the equipment that can withstand the high temperatures.

Water spontaneously dissociates at 2,730C (4,946F). This isn't that hard to achieve with a parabolic reflector: it's a matter of size. In the 1700s they ground a 20ft dia glass lens that would instantaneously vaporize stones placed at the focal point. So, I think a mirror about that size is probably what we're talking about to dissociate water by heat.

The hydrogen and oxygen would be lead to a water quench and then separated by gravity. I'm very fond of this idea.

Well the trouble with most 'renewable' energy sources is the fact that efficiency is NOT moot; in fact it is the whole crux of their impracticality.

Ground level solar flux is less than 1KW /m^2 in the very best circumstances. At 100% efficiency, it would take 1000 square meters of solar collector to get one megaWatt.

At the sort of efficiencies of Hydrogen powered cars, that is about enough energy to power one automobile. The cost of that much collector and associated equipment would dwarf the cost of any automobile.

Throw in YOUR tolerance of inefficiency for your solar funrace, and the problem is magnified n times.

If any of these alternative energy schemes were viable they would already be being used. Some are of course in niche markets where they can justify being subsidized by fossil fuel energy.

[Seafang]

Didn't they already scrap boranes as rocket fuels back in the sixties because the combustion products are solid and there wasn't much of a way around it?

You end up with borates, which you then have to dispose of, unless there is a new boron fuel that has come out.



Unless we come up with a way to mimic photosynthesis, it takes way more energy to reduce carbon dioxide than it does to split water.

Using methane as an example (from: http://www.webchem.net/notes/how_far/enthalpy/enthalpy_of_combustion.htm )

CH4(g) + 2O2(g) -> CO2(g) + 2H2O(g) DHq = -882 kJ mol-1

That means to go the other direction you need to put in 882 kJ mol-1

Using a fuel cell as the other example (from: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html )

H2(g) + O2(g) -> 2H2O(l) DH = -285.83 kJ mol-1

The opposite reaction would need an input of 285.83 kJ mol-1.

Since the entropy terms would probably be simliar, I'm sure the total free energy change is similar to these also. You get a lot of energy out of hydrocarbons, but to put all that energy back in is just too much for current technology to do cost effectively (I guess). So far, doing it with water to supply the whole world with power is still quite out of reach (I think).

Well if it takes more energy to split CO2 than water, you are saying in effect that carbon is a better source of stored chemical energy than Hydorgen is. But you are still missing my point that a cyclic pprocess that starts with the effluent from an energy consumtion process (burning hydrogen), and then reprocesses that effluent to recover the 'fuel', is a pretty good definition of insanity.

Why not recover the output from a wood fire and reprocess it to recover the wood; think of how many trees that would save; but sadly it would provide us with any net energy. Nor does making hydrogen 'fuel'

[Seafang]

Read the links before leaping to conclusions.


I didn't leap to any conclusions; far from it. I merely obseved the laws of thermodynamics. I could read your links and discover that some farmer is consuming the waste from his herd to recover some energy.

Unfortunately he has still not built a fence around his property, and cut the gas and electric utilities off.

[Chronos]

A few clarifications

Hydrogen from methanol:But you are still working with fossil fuels or their derivatives. You still have to dig things out of the ground and "burn" them. This is not a renewable resource.Methanol can be distilled from wood, a renewable resource. Hydogen can also be obtained from ethanol, which can be distilled from corn - another renewable resource
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/13/hydrogen.reactors.ap/

Hydrogen from coal:This is just saying there is a way to extract hydrogen from another fossil fuel that you have to dig out of the ground and burn. It doesn't reduce CO2 emissions, it just saves the hydrogen.Coal is not 'burned' during gassification, albeit CO2 is still produced. One of the points being made in the linked article on coal gassification was the generator is selling CO2 along with other process byproducts.

Hydrogen from sunlight:You know all the problems with solar anything. First the sun has to out. Second, the total efficiency is terrible with current technology. You'd have to have solar arrays the size of Kansas to provide enough H2 for the US.First, no one is suggesting supplying the entire US by this method, it is just another strategy using the free, renewable energy of the sun. Second, in the linked article, the technology uses the heat from sunlight to produce hydrogen. How is that inefficient?

Hydrogen from wind:Again, the problem is that you need the wind to be blowing. Not everywhere is windy, and you'd need a windfarm the size of Massachusettes to make enough H2 for the US.Again, no one is suggesting supplying the entire US by this method. While windy locations are an advantage, just about any location will do: deserts, swamps, mountains, wastelands. The productive output may vary with the wind, but the input energy is free and the output [H2] can be stored and used whenever you wish, not just when the wind is blowing.I didn't leap to any conclusions; far from it. I merely obseved the laws of thermodynamics.Which is to say you missed the whole point of this discussion. The laws of thermodynamics are not at issue here, and are being met very nicely. All of the processes mentioned require materials and energy to produce hydrogen, which can then be used in place of oil. So what if it takes more energy than you get from burning the hydrogen? If it is free [like the sun or geothermal], who cares?

[shrumeo]

A few clarifications

Hydrogen from methanol:Methanol can be distilled from wood, a renewable resource. Hydogen can also be obtained from ethanol, which can be distilled from corn - another renewable resource
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/13/hydrogen.reactors.ap/
Ah yes, that's why it's called wood alcohol. You'd have to have way more sustainable forests than we have now.

I just remember this seminar where a guy showed how much power the world uses (and the US) and how far short certain renewable resources fall at current levels of technology. He showed that by using biomass, you'd have to use ALL arable land on the earth to power the US.

Hydrogen from coal:Coal is not 'burned' during gassification, albeit CO2 is still produced. One of the points being made in the linked article on coal gassification was the generator is selling CO2 along with other process byproducts.
I'm sure its pyrolyzed, but I put "burned" in quotes to mean, they heat it and stuff...

Hydrogen from sunlight:First, no one is suggesting supplying the entire US by this method, it is just another strategy using the free, renewable energy of the sun. Second, in the linked article, the technology uses the heat from sunlight to produce hydrogen. How is that inefficient?
In the amount of space it takes up versus the amount of power it produces. And I'm not really even talking about thermal efficiency (car engines are terrible at this too).


Hydrogen from wind:Again, no one is suggesting supplying the entire US by this method.
Then there's little point. We really aren't saving anything by having a few wind farms sparsely placed around the country.

While windy locations are an advantage, just about any location will do: deserts, swamps, mountains, wastelands. The productive output may vary with the wind, but the input energy is free and the output [H2] can be stored and used whenever you wish, not just when the wind is blowing.Which is to say you missed the whole point of this discussion.
At what cost to build, maintain, and operate? If it's not profitable, there won't be much of a line forming to start investing.

The laws of thermodynamics are not at issue here, and are being met very nicely. All of the processes mentioned require materials and energy to produce hydrogen, which can then be used in place of oil. So what if it takes more energy than you get from burning the hydrogen? If it is free [like the sun or geothermal], who cares?
That's great if the input energy is free. It's great that these things produce hydrogen from free energy. But things like wind farms and solar farms aren't going to get out of the niche category unless the cost to produce these things comes down and the watt per dollar to maintain and operate goes up. And again, if they aren't going to supply a major chunk of the power we use then there is little point in bothering.

Things like coal gassification and alcohols from biomass have their own environmental problems to work out and we might as well stick with digging fossil fuels straight out of the ground and putting the carbon into the atmosphere. If we wanted to use this method for any significant chunk of our power "needs" then we'd have to devote almost all our farmland to doing this.

Eh, I googled a few nay-saying webpages:
http://www.recoverybydiscovery.com/hydrogen.htm
http://www.pacificsites.net/~dglaser/h2/General_Articles/
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=553&subcookie=1

I think the gist of most of these are "Take an energy source, any energy source, and run your car on it. Then take the same energy source, split water, compress hydrogen, and run your car on it. The hydrogen car goes a tiny fraction that the other car did. Sound stupid? Well, that's the hydrogen economy."

This one tries to dispell the myths of the nay sayers.
http://www.pacificsites.net/~dglaser/h2/General_Articles/E-20HydrogenMyths.pdf
I didn't read the whole thing yet but the first "myth" the dispell is that "A whole hydrogen industry would need to be developed from scratch." and the answer is that we already have lots of hydrogen production infrastructure already in place....we get it from fossil fuels! Myth busted! :smile: And they keep talking like they plan to get all their hydrogen from reforming natural gas. Well, not mentioning that the other product of that process is CO2, why not just run the car on natural gas?

[Cliff_J]

shrumeo - no one here is naive enough to think we're going to switch to a hydrogen economy overnight and that there aren't challenges to overcome.

But as just one example, currently something like 1/10th of the US electricity generation comes from hydroelectric plants. Anyone could do some math to point out how inefficient it is to have the sun heat up water, condense, collect, and then run through a turbine to make electricity, send over wires and transformers, et cetera.

At some point the cost of pulling up resources from the ground will be higher due to scarcity. Some of us would really like to see those things change well before it gets to that stage.

Its elementary math to think how effective it would be to have "think locally, act globally" take effect inside the US and have people switch to efficient lighting sources alone.

A solar powered car is impractical. But a hydrogen derived from solar energy, energy that is otherwise untilized heating some shingles on a rooftop or sand in a desert. Taking that and making dumb predictions is just as silly as saying we should do nothing. There is plenty of gray area in-between.

Cliff

[russ_watters]

The thing I like most about nuclear power is its simplicity. We could research, develop, and deploy a dozen different "alternate energy" schemes in hundreds or thousands of plants that together might account for 20%-30% of our power usage. Or we could build 100 nuclear plants (using existing or only slightly new technology) and replace all of the existing coal plants (50% of our current electric production) and then some.

[shrumeo]

Well if it takes more energy to split CO2 than water, you are saying in effect that carbon is a better source of stored chemical energy than Hydorgen is. But you are still missing my point that a cyclic pprocess that starts with the effluent from an energy consumtion process (burning hydrogen), and then reprocesses that effluent to recover the 'fuel', is a pretty good definition of insanity.

Why not recover the output from a wood fire and reprocess it to recover the wood; think of how many trees that would save; but sadly it would provide us with any net energy. Nor does making hydrogen 'fuel'
Oh, I totally agree. I'm in the nay-sayer camp.
I think this "hydrogen economy" stuff is crap.

[shrumeo]

shrumeo - no one here is naive enough to think we're going to switch to a hydrogen economy overnight and that there aren't challenges to overcome.

I think there might be a few people who are naive enough to think that it's "right around the corner" or even worth going after at all. I'm not suggesting suspending all research in the matter, but I think people are jumping the gun if they think that any kind of "hydrogen economy" we can drum up any time in the near future is going to reduce pollution or be cost effective.

But as just one example, currently something like 1/10th of the US electricity generation comes from hydroelectric plants. Anyone could do some math to point out how inefficient it is to have the sun heat up water, condense, collect, and then run through a turbine to make electricity, send over wires and transformers, et cetera.
It's not efficient but it's free and practically non-polluting. So it's extremely cash efficient. And actually, any evaluation of the "efficiency" of a natural process like the water cycle wouldn't really apply to anything but the part we care about, the part where the water falls.

At some point the cost of pulling up resources from the ground will be higher due to scarcity. Some of us would really like to see those things change well before it gets to that stage.

That's great. I hope we aren't putting too many eggs in the hygrogen basket.

Its elementary math to think how effective it would be to have "think locally, act globally" take effect inside the US and have people switch to efficient lighting sources alone.
What efficient lighting sources are you talking about?
Lower watt bulbs? Gloomy flourescent lights? That's thinking globally?

A solar powered car is impractical.
Only because current technology isn't good enough. Same problem with the production of hydrogen from renewable resources in a non-polluting way.

But a hydrogen derived from solar energy, energy that is otherwise untilized heating some shingles on a rooftop or sand in a desert. Taking that and making dumb predictions is just as silly as saying we should do nothing. There is plenty of gray area in-between.

Ya lost me somewhere in here.
Did you mean to say that solar power could be used to produce hydrogen gas, then compress it, then put it in a really high pressure tank to drive a fuel cell in a minivan?
How much sunlight would it take?
What area of the earth would need to be taken up to collect the amount of sunlight needed to produce the hydrogen needed to keep one car running? Multiply that by hundreds of millions of cars.

[Chronos]

I perceive a clear difference of opinion here. One party suggests free energy is free, the other party suggests free energy is too expensive.

[Cliff_J]

shrumeo - your stance is much clearer now but seems overly pessimistic.

Metal Hydride storage of hydrogen is so safe that even when at full capacity you can crush open a container and extinguish a lit cigarette in the raw fuel storage material. That would be far safer than any petroleum tank.

One website did some elementary math using just off the shelf PV cells with their current efficiency, no future BS, just what could be done today in an Arizona desert. The basis of power production was the current electricity consumption in the US. The size of the thing would be about 125 miles * 125 miles - yes that's millions of acres but would barely be visible from space.

Obviously some carrier would need to store the energy for non-production times and the practicality is bogus because of the enormous cost and energy needed to produce that many cells but that isn't the point. The point is that it wouldn't require covering 110% of the available space on the planet, but instead just a few percent of the desert in one state for a solar electrical farm.

Its a far different matter with transportation if the full potential of the carbon fuels is used as a comparison. But a hydrogen/electric car with primary electric drive from batteries is included its more fair assuming high efficiency is recognised as important too.

Flourescent and LED lights could dramatically cut the needed energy requirements in this country. As could high SEER air conditioners and even motion detection lights that are only on when someone is present or social trends like corporate policies to limit energy consumption. A majority of our electricity comes from coal and natural gas, efforts to help reduce the consumption of those benefits everyone.

There are a few select people making the investment and living off the grid today using PV cells and batteries. There are some making their own biodiesel to drive without using petroleum. Neither is cheaper today and have long ROIs to even come close. But at some point the economies of scale could easily be swayed to the opposite.

I don't think the viewpoints are that different. We both agree the cost is currently too high and as an engineering forum finding means to reduce the cost seems like a worthy discussion.

Cliff

[russ_watters]

As I have said before, it is my opinion that this "hydrogen economy" stuff is just misdirected pseud-environmentalism. It does nothing whatsoever to address the primary problem: the generation of electricity. Worse, it is counterproductive because it takes money, effort, and political pressure away from the bigger problem. Until the coal-fired electricity problem is solved, virtually all of our efforts should be directed to it.

Combining the "hydrogen economy" cause with the "alternate energy" cause is even worse: while we waste billions of dollars and decades squeezing another 2% efficiency out of solar cells, building wind farms that produce 50 MW (one skyscraper burns 50MW), we're riding the consumption vs production curve in the wrong direction. In 20 years, with a trillion dollars, we could probably get all that alternate energy up to maybe 20% of our energy production. That's nowhere near enough to be worth it (and certainly not enough to justify any sort of "hydrogen economy" based on it"). Not only is the pollution situation getting worse, but we're in imminent danger of a major power supply crisis. The cascade failure that took down much of the northeastern seaboard last year will be a weekly occurrence and the effect on the economy will be disastrous.

Regarding efficiency gains, yes, they are a good idea and they help, but they aren't a solution. Without a terrible amount of effort or money, you can reduce the energy usage of an older commercial building by 20%. Same goes for your house. But that's not enough to offset the increase in consumption due to economic growth and it doesn't even touch that 50% of our electric power that comes from coal.

And for more, our youngest nuclear plants are more than 20 years old. Even if the irrational anti-nuclear political climate changes (there are hints that it is), it'll be 20 more years before another one comes on-line. In the meantime, a significant fraction of our existing nuclear capacity will be lost. Reaplacing it: more coal and oil. And if this "hydrogen economy" thing happens? Dear god - that'll require doubling the amount of electricity generated by coal and oil. Yeah, altogether, that'll probably result in less oil usage, but it'll mean much more coal.

edit: regarding cars: they are taking care of themselves. I'm sure you've all heard of the new Honda Accord hybrid: 255hp and 37/29mpg. That's a 50% improvement over a typical car of that engine size. Hybrids are the real deal and in 10 years, they'll dominate the auto market.

[Averagesupernova]

So we can get hydrogen from ethanol; where do we get the energy to create the ethanol in the first place; current methods of ethanol production take more energy to produce than you get from the ethanol.



Hmmmm. What are you including as the energy needed to make the ethanol? Are you including the energy costs of raising the crop? Because if you are you are fooling yourself. When alcohol is removed from the crop 100% of the food product remains. Absolutely NO nutrition is lost in the process. So are you saying that we should be feeding the grain to livestock without removing the alcohol ahead of time and simply waste it? Contrary to popular belief the production of alcohol is a net gain.

[russ_watters]

That's something I know very little about - is alcohol normally removed from grain before the grain is used? How is it done?

[Averagesupernova]

That's something I know very little about - is alcohol normally removed from grain before the grain is used? How is it done?

Ummmm, well yes. It can't very well be removed after the animal eats it.

No seriously. I believe they make a mash out of it. Something called distillers grain is often fed to livestock. It is a yellowish white cookie crumb type texture. It is what is left after the alcohol is removed. All of the nutrition an animal would get out of the grain before the process still remains.

[hitssquad]

What are you including as the energy needed to make the ethanol?Natural gas, coal, and liquid petroleum. Straight from the horse's mouth, one of the ethanol advocacy websites says:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/factfic_envir.html

energy sources ... such as natural gas and coal ... convert grain into a premium liquid fuel. ...17% of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel.


When alcohol is removed from the crop 100% of the food product remains.It does not. Alcohol is formed from the carbohydrates in the grain. There is a net loss in this conversion. It takes fossil-fuel energy to grow the crop, and it takes fossil-fuel energy to distill the carbohydrates in that crop into ethanol. If we as Americans stop using ethanol in our cars, and continue to drive the same amount of miles, we will see a net savings in our fossil fuel consumption.

You cannot replace liquid fossil-fuels with ethanol. You can replace them with boron (http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html); and you can replace them with nuclear gasoline (http://www.archive-one.com/new-5453663-4277.html). If ethanol could replace liquid fossil-fuels, Nazi Germany might not have felt the need to develop the Fischer-Tropsch process:


The Fischer-Tropsch process, named after its developers, the German chemists Franz Fischer and Hans Tropsch, was used extensively in Germany in the 1930s to produce synthetic petroleum and diesel fuel. It uses a mixture of carbon monoxide and hydrogen gases with a catalyst containing nickel, cobalt, or modified iron. The process is currently used to produce the raw materials for manufacturing synthetic fats and soaps.

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


Except for the biomass-fermentation process, liquid fuel synthesis has changed little since the process was first developed in Germany during the 1930s. This first technique, called the Fischer-Tropsch process, used steam and oxygen to produce coal gas, which was then liquefied by a catalytic reaction. The Fischer-Tropsch process was used to manufacture nearly 600,000 metric tons of synthetic coal fuels each year during World War II (1939-1945).

Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2002. © 1993-2001 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

[Averagesupernova]

Natural gas, coal, and liquid petroleum. Straight from the horse's mouth, one of the ethanol advocacy websites says:
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/factfic_envir.html




It does not. Alcohol is formed from the carbohydrates in the grain. There is a net loss in this conversion. It takes fossil-fuel energy to grow the crop, and it takes fossil-fuel energy to distill the carbohydrates in that crop into ethanol. If we as Americans stop using ethanol in our cars, and continue to drive the same amount of miles, we will see a net savings in our fossil fuel consumption.

You cannot replace liquid fossil-fuels with ethanol. You can replace them with boron (http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html); and you can replace them with nuclear gasoline (http://www.archive-one.com/new-5453663-4277.html). If ethanol could replace liquid fossil-fuels, Nazi Germany might not have felt the need to develop the Fischer-Tropsch process:


Maybe you should quote the whole paragraph?




Doesn't it take more energy to produce ethanol than you get from it?

No. Whether produced from corn or other biomass feedstocks, ethanol generates more energy than used during production. Plants used in ethanol production harness the power of the sun to grow. By releasing the energy stored in corn and other feedstocks, ethanol production utilizes solar energy, replacing fossil energy use. A life cycle analysis of ethanol production - from the field to the vehicle - found that ethanol has a large and growing positive fossil energy balance. According to a 2002 U.S. Department of Agriculture study, ethanol yields 34% more fossil energy than is used to grow and harvest the grain and process it into ethanol. The study makes note of significant energy efficiency improvements that have been made in ethanol production due to higher yielding corn varieties, technological advances in ethanol production such as the use of molecular sieves and natural gas, and improved farming practices (precision and no-till farming.)

Unlike ethanol, other fuels, including MTBE and gasoline, take more fossil energy to produce than they yield.

Importantly, producing ethanol from domestic grains achieves a net gain in a more desirable form of energy. It utilizes abundant domestic energy sources, such as natural gas and coal, to convert grain into a premium liquid fuel. Only about 17% of the energy used to produce ethanol comes from liquid fuels, such as gasoline and diesel fuel.

[russ_watters]

Ummmm, well yes. It can't very well be removed after the animal eats it.

No seriously. I believe they make a mash out of it. Something called distillers grain is often fed to livestock. It is a yellowish white cookie crumb type texture. It is what is left after the alcohol is removed. All of the nutrition an animal would get out of the grain before the process still remains. I just didn't think they did anything like that before they made bread, for example. And since there is nutritional value in alcohol (its a carbohydrate) it doesn't seem right that "all of the nutrition" is still there.

What you are saying seems highly misleading. Another thing: Unlike ethanol, other fuels, including MTBE and gasoline, take more fossil energy to produce than they yield. This is rediculous. If it took 2 gallons of gas (for example) to get a gallon of gas to your car, it wouldn't be worth using.

[Chronos]

Ouch, this all seems misinformed. Ethanol from plants [e.g., corn] is condensed solar energy. Corn gets it's energy from the sun and so do the bacteria that convert corn sugar to ethanol. The waste product still retains the starch [carbohydrate] energy, but not the sugar. The loss is, however, rather minimal and the ethanol is essentially free. Ethanol, however, can be used directly as fuel [it already is]. No need to convert it to hydrogen.

[hitssquad]

According to a 2002 U.S. Department of Agriculture study, ethanol yields 34% more fossil energy than is used to grow and harvest the grain and process it into ethanol.Ethanol may have a positive energy yield, but if it does it is because of input from solar energy. Solar energy is relatively diffuse which contributes to its being environmentally-destructive, dangerous and expensive.

Ethanol's positive energy yield is not mutually-exclusive with the possibility that it takes more fossil energy to produce than do fossil fuels:
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=21

A study last year by Cornell University scientist David Pimentel highlighted another problem. Most replacements for gas--including ethanol--have to be manufactured. It turns out this process is both energy-intensive and expensive. Pimentel's analysis showed that it takes about 70 percent more energy to produce ethanol than the resultant ethanol yields. The additional energy comes from, you guessed it, fossil fuels.

Pimentel found it costs $1.74 to produce a gallon of ethanol, twice that for gasoline. He notes that's why "fossil fuels--not ethanol--are used to produce ethanol.... Growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol."

Perhaps the USDA study was only counting fossil-energy used onsite and not also the fossil-energy used to produce the fossil-energy used onsite.

[hitssquad]

Corn gets it's energy from the sun and so do the bacteria that convert corn sugar to ethanol. The waste product still retains the starch [carbohydrate] energy, but not the sugar.Modern agriculture has a sizeable petroleum input. This is why, depending on one's diet, it is possible to get better gas mileage driving an average car than riding a bike.



ethanol is essentially free.Ethanol is so expensive that...
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=21

"...Growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol."

Unfortunately, taxpayers will make up the difference in the form of subsidies and higher fuel prices of 4 to 10 cents per gallon. Further, since ethanol can't be sent through pipelines, transportation costs will make it even costlier on the East and West coasts.

There are huge payoffs for finding the "miracle fuel" (i.e., one that is both clean and cheap). As yet, no one, nowhere has found it.

[Averagesupernova]

Hitsquad, I really don't know how to reply to some of the things you have posted. Apparently I haven't been clear enough to make you understand my viewpoint. Corn is, has been, and will continue to be grown regardless of ethanol use. The energy used to produce the crop that alcohol plants use will continue to be used to grow the crop because it is used in so many other places. As I said before after the alcohol is removed from the grain it is still suitable for livestock feed as well as many other things. So the alcohol can be considered a by-product. The alcohol plants don't consider it a by-product, but most people don't consider gasoline a by-product either. Guess what? Before cars were around it WAS considered a by-product because there was little use for it. But people didn't say to scrap the idea of using gasoline (well maybe they did, none of us were alive then to remember) to fuel vehicles because it adds another process to refinement which in turn takes more energy.

Your comments about solar energy: So your suggestion is to quit growing food? Once again, the crops will be raised because 1) it is profitable, 2) we need to eat, 3) a host of other reasons we could come up with. Fuel WILL go into producing the crop regardless of whether or not alcohol is harvested from it.

I read some from the link you posted. Here is a quote:


Pimentel found it costs $1.74 to produce a gallon of ethanol, twice that for
gasoline. He notes that's why "fossil fuels--not ethanol--are used to produce ethanol.... Growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol."


Once again, I ask how did they arrive at this? You CANNOT use the energy used to grow the crop because it will be grown regardless.

The reason why growers cannot afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol is because using ethanol requires gasoline. Tractors that burn gasoline are cost prohibitive to run regardless of whether or not the gasoline contains ethanol. Requiring producers to use ethanol is tantamount to require any vehicles at an electric power generating plant to run on electricity.

Russ, you think it seems rediculous that it takes more energy to produce a gallon of gas than what that gallon of gas will yield. I don't claim to know for sure if this is true. But what is the alternative? No more gas? There is still a net gain over not doing it at all.

[Ivan Seeking]

As for a miracle fuel, decentralization and diversification are key concepts to a Hydrogen economy. Each geographic area has a number of "indigenous" energy sources. For example, the pacific NW produces many wood byproducts that can be, and to some extent are used as energy sources. One thing that struck me recently was the question of wood chips. We are shipping these to Japan by the boatload. I wonder if or when the energy value of those chips will exceed the resale value. We also burn tremendous quantities of wood and grasses that might act as energy sources. Remember, any C-H bond can yield an H. Techniques to exploit these sources are investigated - links are posted in this and the original thread.

We have regions each well adapted to one or several of wind, solar, alcohol and biodiesel production - any agricultural area can produce energy crops of many varieties. We also find tidal generators [the winning project for the national science fair this year], low-head hydroelectric power, geothermal, clean coal, and this doesn't even touch on the world of bacterial H2 production. In many cases it may make sense to produce H2 and transport the fuel, in other cases it makes more sense to burn or utilize other green-friendly fuels directly.

Magic bullet thinking is Second Wave stuff. :biggrin:

[Chronos]

Ethanol is so expensive that...
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=21That source seems to lack a key element: facts. It appears to be little more than a politicized, hand-waving, diatribe. It is not that difficult to find a credentialed 'expert', like Dr. Pimental, to throw support to just about any position. A contrasting opinion is offered by this rather credible looking report from the US Department of Agriculture
Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.24, that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 24-percent energy gain.
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm#net
A followup study: Economic Research Service Report number 814 titled "Estimating The Net Energy Balance Of Corn Ethanol: An Update " was issued in 2002 stating: "Corn ethanol is energy efficient, as indicated by an energy ratio of 1.34; that is, for every Btu dedicated to producing ethanol, there is a 34-percent energy gain."
The input efficiencies for fossil energy sources was also addressed in this study. This was done to compare fossil energy used to extract, transport and manufacture crude oil into gasoline. Gasoline was found to have a net energy value of 0.805. In other words, for every unit of energy dedicated to the production of gasoline there is a 19.5 percent energy loss. In other words, it takes 70% (1.34/0.81) more fossil fuel energy to produce gasoline compared to ethanol.

As of 2004, the net energy gain from ethanol production is reported to be 1.36. Shapouri also had this to say:
“This (research), unlike the Dr. Pimentel report in 2003, is based on straightforward methodology and highly regarded quality data,” Shapouri said. Numerous economists have questioned the validity of Pimentel’s findings, arguing that he uses outdated data in his methodology.
http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2004/june/060904a.htm

[Cliff_J]

Actually the diesel tractors used to grow the crops could be ran on E95 which is 95% ethanol. Or the tractors could be run on 100% biodiesel during the summer and a blend in colder months. Depending on the design of the fuel system this could be as simple as putting it in the tank. But this would be a fraction of a percent of oil consumed in a year, the household heating oil, over the road trucking industry, commercial airlines, etc would be substantially larger applications. I agree it makes little sense to transfer the fuel to hydrogen if the push was to go green fuels in those applications. And in the latter two a simple ROI would be a pretty easy sell to a small number of customers with a large impact.

The biggest problem I see with E85 for gas cars or E95 for diesel is that besides the low awareness of its existence or FFV autos is Exx fuel cannot use the existing distribution system since they remove deposits that then clog filters or lead to leaks. So it sort of lends itself to the decentralized production as well, but should still have superior energy density.

Russ you do bring up a valid point about the hydrogen economy being a unicorn that can be manipulated to mask true problems. I've even seen some young people claim the old conspiracy theory about the hydrogen fuel cell cars similar to the 100MPG carbs the oil companies have suppossedely kept quiet all these years. Both political canidates plugged hydrogen as the miracle cure. I see such overly optimistic viewpoints as means to help motivate the public to consider the move to alternative fuels. Upotpic perhaps since it fits my personal viewpoint but seemingly a good direction.

Oh, and I thought our electricity needs only increased in the single digit range yearly? I thought it was closely related to economic growth and can't find a lot of reliable info online in my searches....

Cliff

[lengould]

I've seem this argument sorted out several places, and have concluded that the DOE's energy ratio of 1.24 is about accurate for ethanol from corn. I also think there's no new developments anticipated or being investigated here, and therefore this process justifies no further subsidies of any sort. Subsidizing ethanol from corn is simply a direct cash payment to farmers, most of which is collected by huge conglomerates like ADM.

Smarter would be to develop Iogen's system of producing ethanol and biodiesel from cellulose (stover / straw / wood / paper waste). http://www.iogen.ca Uses an enzyme, needs some further ecomonies but very close.

Interesting also is SHEC Labs. thermochemical water splitting using a solar collector. http://www.sheclabs.com They've just announced (October 12, 2004), a strategic partnership with Hydrogenics, a (well respected) publicly traded fuel cell manufacturing company (who supplies GM's fuel cells for research). Their patent indicates a really neat "catalytic static centrifuge" concept for separation which, with eg. solar energy, should be REALLY cheap to build and operate depending on catalyst since they claim to get significant production at "less than" 800 degC.

Also note the Sulphur / Iodine process of splitting water using only heat. DOE etc. working on it, but still difficult due to materials problems with high-temp. sulfuric acid etc. They should soon beat it. Requires fairly high (>1000 degC?) thermal inputs and large factory-type processes so currently targeting Gen IV helium circuit reactors with mixed electric / hydrogen as needed outputs. Maybe 10-20 yrs out.

I like the TSSOM concept. Tension Stabilized Steerable Orbiting Mirror. Big sheet of metalized Mylar in Geosync Orbit reflects sunlight onto a photovoltaic array at eg. Arizona or Salton Sea etc. http://www.ecologen.com/page_TSSOM2-75.html Each mirror can increase the PV array's output by 75%, which increase happens at night. 4 x 2.75 km dia. mirrors in orbit all pointing to same PV array makes the cost of the system's electrical output cheaper than fossil fuels. Needs the Space Elevator working first though to be economical, but that's coming very soon now that the crew at Los Alamos have grown 4 cm long nanotubes http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/04-076.shtml, or see the guys at McGill http://www.azonano.com/details.asp?articleID=1022 or many others.

Space Elevator development, google NASA's Dr. Edwards or quick hilights at http://www.isr.us/Spaceelevatorconference/ or specifics at http://www.spaceelevator.com/docs/iac-2004/iac-04-iaa.3.8.2.01.edwards.pdf . A ton of other stuff on the web re. Space Elevator, estimates put it technically feasible "sometime before" 2017.

And the final word on "Hydrogen as Energy Carrier" for transport should be Graham Cowan's work on the Boron fuel cycle, which I think deserves some serious development work. See http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html#TOC . Graham has addressed all the issues with unimpeachable science. Needs development work on the turbine and the regeneration chemical process but eliminates the huge energy hit of hydrogen storage / transport / handling. I've submitted to him a (IMHO) really neat design for an excellent turbine that would work really well for vehicles but he's working on other things now. Too bad.
:!!)

[Locrian]

Combining the "hydrogen economy" cause with the "alternate energy" cause is even worse: while we waste billions of dollars and decades squeezing another 2% efficiency out of solar cells, building wind farms that produce 50 MW (one skyscraper burns 50MW), we're riding the consumption vs production curve in the wrong direction. In 20 years, with a trillion dollars, we could probably get all that alternate energy up to maybe 20% of our energy production. That's nowhere near enough to be worth it (and certainly not enough to justify any sort of "hydrogen economy" based on it"). Not only is the pollution situation getting worse, but we're in imminent danger of a major power supply crisis. The cascade failure that took down much of the northeastern seaboard last year will be a weekly occurrence and the effect on the economy will be disastrous.


Well, I think you are being overly pessimistic on solar and wind power sources.

Still, I can't argue with your fundamental point. Even being much more optimistic than you are about those two possibilities, nuclear is still a fantastic choice.

The hydrogen economy is a fantastic idea; but without other changes it will stay that way, as fantasy. Your post did a good job of showing why cutting through that hype is important.

[russ_watters]

Well, I think you are being overly pessimistic on solar and wind power sources. Slight clarification: I'm not completely against solar and wind. What I am against is the idea that they are a real solution to our energy problems.

Green Mountan Energy, for example, would be a good idea if it wasn't a scam. Basically, you build a wind plant and then charge people extra for the power there. People buy into the Green Mountain scam, so there must be a market for more expensive, but cleaner energy.

In addition, I think things like supplimental power from solar cells on the roof should be encouraged more.

[Seafang]

Modern agriculture has a sizeable petroleum input. This is why, depending on one's diet, it is possible to get better gas mileage driving an average car than riding a bike.



Ethanol is so expensive that...
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=21

"...Growers and processors can't afford to burn ethanol to make ethanol."

Unfortunately, taxpayers will make up the difference in the form of subsidies and higher fuel prices of 4 to 10 cents per gallon. Further, since ethanol can't be sent through pipelines, transportation costs will make it even costlier on the East and West coasts.

There are huge payoffs for finding the "miracle fuel" (i.e., one that is both clean and cheap). As yet, no one, nowhere has found it.


The automobile hasn't been built that is more energy efficient than riding a bike. Bicycles are just about the most efficient form of transportation known. So efficient that their use as a form of exercise is highly overrrated. I have bicycle nut friends who, if they ever throw their leg over that bar and sit on the seat, will not get off till they have travelled at least 50 miles. And they don't consume 2 gallons of gasoline in the form of food doing it; they do it on an empty stomach even.

I like that word subsidies when it comes to farm production; or any other for that matter whether it be subsidies for wind power or photoVoltaic.

'Government subsidies' come from tax dollars, and tax dollars (most of them) come from the profits of private enterprise. The average US corporation makes about 4% after tax profit, and pays about 1/3 of gross profits in taxes, so they make about 6% pretax profit (on average).

So to get that $1 subsidy dollar, some profit making enterprise has to sell $16.67 worth of product; which they make using the energy of fossil fuels.

So that tax subsidy which makes so many so-called alternative energy schemes seem real comes at a very large cost in fossil fuel usage.

Finally if ethanol production is actually an energy gain, then it should be possible to put a fence around the farm and let only sunlight and water come in, and run the whole place on the sunlight and some of the ethanol it produces.

I'm always willing to learn something new; it would be news to me that corn less ethanol is still as good a crop.

All the farmers I know who run massive dairy farms and grow their own feedcorn, certainly aren't going to bother with what it takes to get the alcohol out of their chewed up corn before they feed it to their cows. They go through the corn filed with a machine that leaves only bare dirt behind it and ground up corn plants and birds nests in their storage bins. They input fossil fuel energy in more forms than the diesel to run their tractors. There's herbicides, and pesticides, and water pumping and distribution. They are not about to spend more money to remove part of the carbohydrates that their cows would eat, in order to supply ethanol to someone else, and if they could lower their energy input by converting part of their food crop to alternative fuel, they would be doing that already. The fact that they don't do that already is sufficient proof for me that in fact it isn't possible.

[Averagesupernova]

So to get that $1 subsidy dollar, some profit making enterprise has to sell $16.67 worth of product; which they make using the energy of fossil fuels.



Yeah so what? More input means more output.


Finally if ethanol production is actually an energy gain, then it should be possible to put a fence around the farm and let only sunlight and water come in, and run the whole place on the sunlight and some of the ethanol it produces.


This has been done in the past. At least something similar. Years ago farmers were pretty much self sufficient. They farmed using the beast of burden. They used corn cobs for heating fuel. They might buy a little kerosene for lamps and such, possibly some salt and things of this nature, maybe some iron and coal for a forge for repairs but nothing compared to what is purchased today for supplies. And of course they grew ALL of their own food. Farms were smaller and more plentiful. Yes I know, it's not ethanol, but some of you imply that NOTHING would happen without fossil fuel. Some posters' viewpoints border on the idea of genetically engineering people to consume fossil fuels.



I'm always willing to learn something new; it would be news to me that corn less ethanol is still as good a crop.

All the farmers I know who run massive dairy farms and grow their own feedcorn, certainly aren't going to bother with what it takes to get the alcohol out of their chewed up corn before they feed it to their cows. They go through the corn filed with a machine that leaves only bare dirt behind it and ground up corn plants and birds nests in their storage bins. They input fossil fuel energy in more forms than the diesel to run their tractors. There's herbicides, and pesticides, and water pumping and distribution. They are not about to spend more money to remove part of the carbohydrates that their cows would eat, in order to supply ethanol to someone else, and if they could lower their energy input by converting part of their food crop to alternative fuel, they would be doing that already. The fact that they don't do that already is sufficient proof for me that in fact it isn't possible.



The ‘chewed up corn’ you speak of is known as forage. There is a good reason they don’t process the product to get the ethanol. It would no longer have the physical form of roughage that cattle require in their diet. It may also interest you to know that dairy farms located within a reasonable distance to an alcohol plant will also feed the distiller’s grain product I previously mentioned. It is a fairly dense source of nutrition. The typical large modern dairy farm has one goal. That goal is milk production. Specialization at work. Unfortunately, the typical alcohol plant requires a lot more corn to become cost effective than one farm can provide.

One last thing; just because something is not happening does not mean that something else is not possible.

[hitssquad]

Modern agriculture has a sizeable petroleum input. This is why, depending on one's diet, it is possible to get better gas mileage driving an average car than riding a bike.The automobile hasn't been built that is more energy efficient than riding a bike.That was not contested. The energy burned while riding a bike - only about 300 Calories per mile - is a separate issue from that of the fossil energy that goes into providing that bike rider's 300 Calories per mile.



I have bicycle nut friends who ... have travelled at least 50 miles. And they don't consume 2 gallons of gasoline in the form of food doing itAssuming 300 Calories burned per mile, and using David Pimentel's fossil-energy-input-to-food figures (Food, Energy, and Society (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0870813862). 1996.), 25 MPG or worse on a bicyle is not atypical. Using Pimentel's fossil-energy-input figures for Atlantic lobster, I have calculated that a 300-Calorie-per-mile lobster-eating bicyclist would be achieving 8 MPG. (Lobster harvesting may not be considered typical agriculture, but even normal farm products will give a 300C-per-mile bicyclist MPG fuel-economy ratings in the teens and twenties, according to Pimentel's figures.)

[Chronos]

Indeed, hittsquad. If you apply the Pimentel numbers to any form of coverted energy, you get very low efficiencies [those numbers have, however, been accused of being overly conservative]. Even production of gasoline or coal fired electricity takes some apparently huge efficiency hits. What seems to be overlooked is that condensed sunlight [crude oil, ethanol, etc] has enough stored energy to result in a positive yield. Any economically viable strategy for alternative energy sources must utilize the only 'free' energy source in the known universe - the sun. Solar powered inputs are the only true renewable resources available to us. Converting them into power on demand resources [like gasoline] is the challenge. It can definitely be done using less energy than was provided by the sun [think biomass and fossil fuels]. You always have efficiency losses in any process. That does not mean you have a net total loss.

[hitssquad]

the only 'free' energy source in the known universe [is] the sun.In what way is solar free where other energy resources such as coal and uranium are not?



Solar powered inputs are the only true renewable resources available to us.In what way is solar renewable where other energy resources such as coal and uranium are not?

[russ_watters]

In what way is solar free where other energy resources such as coal and uranium are not? Coal and oil take work to dig out of the ground. Solar energy is passively collected. In what way is solar renewable where other energy resources such as coal and uranium are not? There are finite quantities of both coal and oil in the ground. The sun's enery is, for our purposes, limitless.

[brewnog]

I always thought that the term 'renewable' was given to those sources for which potential production exceeds demand. Coal, oil and natural gas are being produced (and here I mean produced, not extracted) at a rate less than our current consumption.

[russ_watters]

I always thought that the term 'renewable' was given to those sources for which potential production exceeds demand. Coal, oil and natural gas are being produced (and here I mean produced, not extracted) at a rate less than our current consumption. Well, that wouldn't be that useful of a definition. From Google: Energy obtained from sources that are essentially inexhaustible (unlike, for example, fossil fuels, of which there is a finite supply). Renewable sources of energy include conventional hydroelectric power, wood, waste, geothermal, wind, photovoltaic, and solar thermal energy.

[brewnog]

I wonder what the rate of actual production (as opposed to extraction) of fossil fuels looks like.

[Ivan Seeking]

Hydrogen economy for a sustainable development:
state-of-the-art and technological perspectives

M. Conte*, A. Iacobazzi, M. Ronchetti, R. Vellone
ENEA, Advanced Energy Technology Division, C.R. Casaccia, Via Anguillarese 301, 00060 Rome, Italy

Abstract
Sustainable energy is becoming of increasing concern world-wide. The rapid growth of global climate changes along with the fear of energy supply shortage is creating a large consensus about the potential benefits of a hydrogen economy coming from renewable energy sources. The interesting perspectives are over-shadowed by uncertainties about the development of key technologies, such as renewable energy sources, advanced production processes, fuel cells, metal hydrides, nanostructures, standards and codes, and so on. The availability of critical technologies can create a base for the start of the hydrogen economy, as a fuel and energy carrier alternative to the current fossil resources. This paper will explore the rationale for such a revolution in the energy sector, will describe the state-of-the-art of major related technologies (fuel cell, storage systems, fuel cell vehicles) and current niche applications, and will sketch scientific and technological challenges and recommendations for research and development (R&D) initiatives to accelerate the pace for the widespread introduction of a hydrogen economy. # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. [continued]
http://prog2000.casaccia.enea.it/nuovo/documenti/2108.PDF

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I always thought that the term 'renewable' was given to those sources for which potential production exceeds demand. Coal, oil and natural gas are being produced (and here I mean produced, not extracted) at a rate less than our current consumption.

Well, that wouldn't be that useful of a definition.Well, that wouldn't be that useful of a definition.

i think that's the only definition that works. If we somehow managed to create a process that converted raw organic matter into crude oil, it would become a renewable resource because it's production could exceed demand. the only thing i would add to that definition is "over long periods of time". some of what we consider to be renewable resources won't be renewable as the population and rate of consumption increases, unless we institute better conservation methods in our consumption of resources.

Solar powered inputs are the only true renewable resources available to us. Converting them into power on demand resources [like gasoline] is the challenge.

right now our only man-made source of storage is chemical batteries, which are incredibly inneffecient and lack the capacity to store energy in the amounts we require for most activities, such as travel. it may be that we should stop looking for fossil fuel replacements and should start making more efficient batteries (and by battery i don't necessarily mean the chemical batteries we use, but rather any form of long term energy storage). it might also be a good idea to research ways of storing solar energy in other chemical forms than the electric batteries we use.

[russ_watters]

i think that's the only definition that works. If we somehow managed to create a process that converted raw organic matter into crude oil, it would become a renewable resource because it's production could exceed demand. Huh? You're making an argument using an example of something that doesn't exist? :uhh:

But yeah, if oil did suddenly become renewable, it would be renewable. :rofl:

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Huh? You're making an argument using an example of something that doesn't exist? :uhh:

But yeah, if oil did suddenly become renewable, it would be renewable. :rofl:

well Duuuh :P every exhaustable resource in existence is only non-renewable because we haven't invented the technology to make it renewable. think star trek, with they're lil food synthesizer things. i believe that eventually we'll invent the technology to synthesize whatever resource we need. in that age all you'll need is a source of raw energy (the sun) and your synthesizer to make all the coal, oil, water, wood etc that you want. these resources are only non-renewable because we don't know how to renew them yet.

i should also mention that oil is renewable in the sense that natural processes do produce more oil, but at a rate far too slow for our current rate of consumption.

[Cliff_J]

Well if TDP (thermo-depolymerization) takes off then that would come close to a renewable energy source for the majority of the fuel products currently created from crude oil.

There was a website claiming to have aluminum batteries with more than an order of magnitude greater storage capacity than lead-acid or lithum batteries at a lower cost. No idea how real and practical (or if just theoretical) but such a technology would fundamentally shift focus off hydrogen and back to electric transportation.

Now we're back to Russ's concerns about building up our electric infrastructure. Its almost like we need another Roosevelt/Eisenhower to be in office to build an infrastructure instead of just talk about it.

Oh, and how ironic that aluminum would be (potentially) the jump forward in the storage of electricity considering the vast amounts used to extract Al from bauxite. :smile:

Cliff

[shrumeo]

If we somehow managed to create a process that converted raw organic matter into crude oil, it would become a renewable resource because it's production could exceed demand.
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1291187/posts
http://www.forrelease.com/D20040519/nyw186.P1.05192004183352.28636.html
http://groundstate.ca/node/68

[shrumeo]

You cannot replace liquid fossil-fuels with ethanol. You can replace them with boron (http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html);
This was dismissed in the sixties.
And the website says they will get boron from its oxides.
This requires an energy input, we might as well be talking about a hydrogen fuel cell.
It says you can only use pure oxygen, something else to buy.
It all sounds like a severe pain in the neck.

and you can replace them with nuclear gasoline (http://www.archive-one.com/new-5453663-4277.html).
Pie in the sky, anyone?

[Seafang]

well Duuuh :P every exhaustable resource in existence is only non-renewable because we haven't invented the technology to make it renewable. think star trek, with they're lil food synthesizer things. i believe that eventually we'll invent the technology to synthesize whatever resource we need. in that age all you'll need is a source of raw energy (the sun) and your synthesizer to make all the coal, oil, water, wood etc that you want. these resources are only non-renewable because we don't know how to renew them yet.

i should also mention that oil is renewable in the sense that natural processes do produce more oil, but at a rate far too slow for our current rate of consumption.

Well to take your thesis-that oil is renewable but too slowly- and continue in that vein we might alos observe that solar energy is renewable, but is simply too diffuse to be useful.

If one takes the solar constant to be 1366.1 Watts per square meter (extraterrestrially) which reduces at ground level to about 1000 W/m^2, then we note that the earth absorbs sunlight over an area pi.R^2, but re-radiates infra red over an area 4.pi.R^2, then we would guess that the average ground level solar flux is more like 250 W/m^2.

More accurate computations suggest the mean value is actually 186 W/m^2.

If we get extremely generous and assume that we can actually mass produce a multi band gap solar cell with 25% efficiency over the solar spectrum, then we could generate about 46.5 W/m^2 on average over the planet

So it would take 21,500 squ meters to generate one megaWatt of electricity (continuously on average). That is about the area of three football fields.

If we collect the solar flux as thermal energy, we could do a different calculation with different efficiencies, and we would find the same result.

Renewable solar energy is simply too scattered to be useful except for niche applications.

If petroleum is simply another mineral dposit, and not squished dinosaurs, then it could be far more plentiful in the earth's crust than we know.

So far as I know, nobody has ever proved that petroleum results from originally living matter whether dinosaurs or old primordial plants; that is simply conjecture and there is essentially zero physical evidence to indicate that origin.

That doesn't resolve the question of whether the planet can withstand continuous 'fossil fuel' burning, but it does change the possible lifetime of the oil age.

Saudi Arabia just announced that its oil reserves are now 70% higher than they previously were. That isn't a ten fold increase or even a 100 fold increase, but it does indicate that the search for more oil is far from over.

[brewnog]

Saudi Arabia just announced that its oil reserves are now 70% higher than they previously were. That isn't a ten fold increase or even a 100 fold increase, but it does indicate that the search for more oil is far from over.

Claims like these are more often based on politics than actual discoveries of new oil. Also, beware of the difference between obtainable and non-obtainable oil reserves, - there's loads of oil beneath us which is simply inaccessible, and OPEC countries often ruthlessly modify their claims in order to affect the global market. (Source: 'The End Of Oil' - Paul Roberts, 2004)

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

So it would take 21,500 squ meters to generate one megaWatt of electricity (continuously on average). That is about the area of three football fields.

I lived in saudi arabia for a year when i was 8, and i remember a school field trip to a solar power plant they had. the plant was fully functional and operational. i do NOT know what kind of output it had, but yes, it did span a few football fields. but it WORKED. and to ignore solar energy would be folly, imho.


If petroleum is simply another mineral dposit, and not squished dinosaurs, then it could be far more plentiful in the earth's crust than we know.

So far as I know, nobody has ever proved that petroleum results from originally living matter whether dinosaurs or old primordial plants; that is simply conjecture and there is essentially zero physical evidence to indicate that origin.


i suggest you take a few biology/chemistry courses. oh, and reread the definition of mineral. here, i'll make it easy on you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mineral
oh, and just for kicks: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=petroleum

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be called a fool than open it and remove all doubt." - my dad ;)

[hitssquad]

the website says they will get boron from its oxides. This requires an energy inputThat was not contested. We have:

essentially limitless energy

limited capacity to carry that energy around with us
Perhaps boron might work better than hydrogen. And perhaps nuclear gasoline might work better than boron.



It says you can only use pure oxygen, something else to buy.http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

The working fluid is expected to be ... atmospherically extracted oxygen.
This means there is an oxygen-extractor on board.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

set the way back machine for my good ol' middle school days :)
way back when, i had thought of an idea for a miniaturized nuclear fission reactor. i am by no means an expert, but with modern technology it seems simple to me to make a nuclear reactor small enough for consumer use.

i understand the MANY risks that would involve regarding radiation and possibilities of melt-downs and economic feasibility and what have you, but those aside, i'd like to know if it's possible to make a reactor small enough to power say a regular automobile. maybe i should start a different thread on this, but i think nuclear power is a viable alternative to other power sources, it's just a matter of safe-guarding it.

so was my 7th grade mind too full of fancy? or is it really possible?

[Kenneth Mann]

For any that may be interested, this article appears on the front page of Today's (Jan 9, 2005) Washington Post:

"Automakers Put Hydrogen Power On the Fast Track" by Peter Baker

It makes the usual discussion about hydrogen powered autos (mostly the fuel cell, which most seem to think flows automatically from hydrogen). The interesting part, however is the expressed belief that the industry is quite serious about it this time. The following comment is made - - -

The Washington Post
After a century of dependence on oil-based fuel, the auto industry is finally giving consumers a serious look at a future with little or no gasoline power.

The article even states the reason - in the following sentences:

The Washington Post
. . . . The market's telling us something -- they're ready for this kind of stuff. The public is aware that we can't continue to consume oil like we do."

The Washington Post
People have sent that message in the way car companies understand best: by buying products such as the Toyota Prius, the Honda Civic Hybrid and the Ford Escape Hybrid. Rising fuel prices, instability in the Middle East and concerns about global warming have helped sustain the hybrid phenomenon, and U.S. car buyers have even turned away from the biggest SUVs in favor of smaller models.
Maybe, finally we are actually going to move. It's beginning to look promising. Note the following:

The Washington Post
- - while they disagree on specifics, virtually all automakers are pushing to get more attention for hydrogen so that society, the government and other industries will get ready for the eventual change,

Now, the main question is - - Will the oil industry and Opec accept the (apparently) inevitable, or will they fight it. If you are interested, the full article can be found at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com

KM

[selfAdjoint]

Now, the main question is - - Will the oil industry and Opec accept the (apparently) inevitable, or will they fight it.

One might think at first that OPEC would fight the transition to a Hydrogen economy. What, after all, is in it for them? But note that Saudi crude, which used to be the standard for "light" (sulfur free), is now all "heavy". The bottom of their barrel may be huge, but it is apparently the bottom. Perhaps they could come to see a hydrogen conversion of their remaining reserves as a productive way to go?

[brewnog]

Now, the main question is - - Will the oil industry and Opec accept the (apparently) inevitable, or will they fight it.


Indeed the oil industry will embrace it. They know it's inevitable, which is why companies like Shell invest heavily in looking into such technologies, and also why BP is trying to show us that it is "Beyond Petroleum" (along with its gay new logo).

If they can't sell us petrol forever, they want to be the ones who can sell us its replacement.

[Ivan Seeking]

Some years ago, the CEO of one of the major oil suppliers stated that the oil industry is planning its own funeral - from the wisdom that, in terms of economics, it is just as important how a business ends, as how it begins. Within the context of the discussion, I took this as meaning that a shift in focus to alternative energy schemes is underway, even at the oil companies.

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, by chance, from Physics Today, today.
The Hydrogen Economy
If the fuel cell is to become the modern steam engine, basic research must provide breakthroughs in understanding, materials, and design to make a hydrogen−based energy system a vibrant and competitive force.

George W. Crabtree, Mildred S. Dresselhaus, and Michelle V. Buchanan
Since the industrial revolution began in the 18th century, fossil fuels in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas have powered the technology and transportation networks that drive society. But continuing to power the world from fossil fuels threatens our energy supply and puts enormous strains on the environment. The world's demand for energy is projected to double by 2050 in response to population growth and the industrialization of developing countries.1 The supply of fossil fuels is limited, with restrictive shortages of oil and gas projected to occur within our lifetimes (see the article by Paul Weisz in Physics Today, July 2004, page 47). Global oil and gas reserves are concentrated in a few regions of the world, while demand is growing everywhere; as a result, a secure supply is increasingly difficult to assure. Moreover, the use of fossil fuels puts our own health at risk through the chemical and particulate pollution it creates. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with global warming threaten the stability of Earth's climate.

A replacement for fossil fuels will not appear overnight. Extensive R&D is required before alternative sources can supply energy in quantities and at costs competitive with fossil fuels, and making those alternative sources available commercially will itself require developing the proper economic infrastructure. Each of those steps takes time, but greater global investment in R&D will most likely hasten the pace of economic change. Although it is impossible to predict when the fossil fuel supply will fall short of demand or when global warming will become acute, the present trend of yearly increases in fossil fuel use shortens our window of opportunity for a managed transition to alternative energy sources. [continued]
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/p39.html

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, since I was looking...
The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/

Hydrogen Economy Offers Major Opportunities
But Faces Considerable Hurdles

WASHINGTON -- A transition to hydrogen as a major fuel in the next 50 years could significantly change the U.S. energy economy, reducing air emissions and expanding domestic energy resources, but technical, economic, and infrastructure barriers need to be overcome, says a new report from the National Academies' National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. In the best case scenario, the transition to a hydrogen economy would take many decades, and any reductions in oil imports and carbon dioxide emissions are likely to be minor during the next 25 years, said the committee that wrote the report.

"Our study suggests that while hydrogen is a potential long-term energy approach for the nation, the government should keep a balanced portfolio of research and development efforts to enhance U.S. energy efficiency and develop alternative energy sources," said committee chair Michael Ramage, retired executive vice president at ExxonMobil Research and Engineering, Moorestown, N.J.
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091632?OpenDocument

[Chronos]

The reality of alternative energy sources is not an issue. They exist and they work. The problem is economics. If alternatives to oil were cheaper, we would already be using them. There may not be cheaper alternatives, I mean golly gee, how much does it cost to pump oil out of the ground and refine it? How much does it cost to raise corn and convert it to ethanol compared to what it would cost if the corn was free [e.g., imagine vast, naturally occuring underground silos filled with corn]? The oil renaissance is going to end in the foreseeable future. The choice is simple. We either develop and commercialize the alternatives before the wells run dry, absorbing the cost slowly, or wait until the bitter end and make the ballon payment.

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, consider the true cost for oil: health issues, environmental issues, 911, war, and the military industrial complex needed to defend our interests in the ME. If these costs were included in the price of gasoline, as in principle they should be, alternative energy options would have been cost competitive long ago.

IMO, one key to understanding the Hydrogen Economy is to understand that these real dollars, and lots of them, must be factored back in as we dig out from the sludge of an oil economy.

[Ivan Seeking]

In the sense indicated above, I wonder to what extent the true price for a gallon of gas could be calculated.

[Kenneth Mann]

In the sense indicated above, I wonder to what extent the true price for a gallon of gas could be calculated.

Not only the true price, but to whom? Who pays the costs? There are winners and losers in every alternative, and more important in the political arena, is the question of "who these will be". Chronos stated:

The problem is economics. If alternatives to oil were cheaper, we would already be using them.

What he means, of course, is "cheaper to those who are the present producers and middlemen (OPEC, other exporting countries, refiners and distributers)". Important in this is the in-place infrastructure, much of which has been built and amortized. Any new energy source will require a new infrastructure, and to the producers and middlemen, this is the deal killer. The cost of importing, cracking and distributing petroleum, as I see it is comparable or possibly even higher than for hydrogen, until we take the cost of infrastructure into consideration, and realize its importance to the producer. (Especially with the new methodologies that are appearing)

To the consumer, and to government, it's a different picture. As Ivan Seeking wrote:

Also, consider the true cost for oil: health issues, environmental issues, 911, war, and the military industrial complex needed to defend our interests in the ME. If these costs were included in the price of gasoline, as in principle they should be, alternative energy options would have been cost competitive long ago

We must remember that it has taken approximately a hundred years to put in place the present petroleum infrastructure. Those who control this infrastructure, very naturally don't want to see their comfortable investment positions threatened (much like the Sabot makers in a previous time). They will predictably resist. That is why it is necessary for those who stand to lose if we don't change must also be active; the consumers (who are always the ones that finance the infrastructures in the end), government, automakers, etc. There will always be winners and losers.

The biggest cost to any new technology, however will be the cost of its infrastructure. We should remember that the petroleum economy faced the same problems. Until the "cracking process" was developed in the early twentieth century, gasoline was considered just as 'out of reach' as are other technologies Today. (Its one advantage was the fact that the energy alternatives then were already running out, and thus the development cost was easily justified because it was necessary. This allowed the new oil producers to easily pass on the costs. (And the old energy producers largely disappeared.)

What we need is for the new energy source companies to come forward (and for Government to recognize its stake and help them to do so). Meanwhile, some of the old-line producers (OPEC, drillers, etc.) will resist. That is to be expected.

KM

[Chronos]

A hydrogen economy makes the most sense on a global basis. Not all parts of the world have enough productive cropland to rely on biomass energy sources, but they all have access to water. It just makes sense to get rid of energy cartels altogether. No other commodity has created as much political turmoil and bloodshed as the global thirst for oil. There has never been a more opportune time to slay the beast. So what if hydrogen ends up twice the price of gasoline. As Ivan noted, hydrogen does not carry the hidden cost baggage of oil. Those savings alone would easily pay for the infrastructure in not very many years. Furthermore, the price would inevitably come down due to technological advances. Apparently the US government is serious about pursuing the hydrogen economy. This could become the most far reaching and important political initiative since the space program. And building the new infrastructure would give an enormous boost to the economy. It be like a war, except the enemy would be oil and no one need die fighting it.

[antiflag403]

Once i discover the most effiecient way to create a nuclear fusion reactor, this agrument will be over. We will have huge amounts of energy, relatively harmless by-products and a whole lot of goodness!!
Ill make sure to post when i make this discovery.

[Ivan Seeking]

Would you please hurry? We're waiting! :biggrin:

[Chronos]

I really don't think electrical power generation is a much a issue in this thread as portable fuel. Electrical generation capacity will do nothing to replace oil without a viable storage system for such power. That is precisely what hydrogen constitutes - a portable propulsion system energy source. Utilizing excess generation capacity to generate hydrogen is, however, relevant. Nuclear generation capacity is vastly underutilized. The technology has been nearly idiot proof since the 70's and the next generation designs [which unfortunately have not been built commercially] are even better. In particular, the gas cooled fast reactor [GCFR] design has all the advantageous and hardly any of the drawbacks of previous generations. It cannot go 'china syndrome' [nuclear fission automatically ceases in a loss of coolant event], there are virtually no long lived radioactive wastes to dispose of [a GCFR can use the hot waste for fuel until it is exhausted of radioactive energy], and it is cheap to build [the technology is so safe that very little regulatory oversight is needed]. For a teaser see:
http://energy.inel.gov/gen-iv/scwr.shtml

[Seafang]

Yeah so what? More input means more output.

One last thing; just because something is not happening does not mean that something else is not possible.

#1 The whole idea of 'so-called' renewable fuels, such as Ethanol, is to replace fossil fuels (when there no longer are any fossil fuels). The fact that vast quantities of fossil fuels are required to make Ethanol (via subsidies) implies there will be no ethanol, either when the fossil fuels run out. Subsidies merely hide the energy losing nature of 'alternative fuels'.

#2 What kind of statement is that ? just what connection is there between your "something" and your "something else" ? Is that an oxymoron or a tautology ?

[Seafang]

A hydrogen economy makes the most sense on a global basis. Not all parts of the world have enough productive cropland to rely on biomass energy sources, but they all have access to water. It just makes sense to get rid of energy cartels altogether. No other commodity has created as much political turmoil and bloodshed as the global thirst for oil. There has never been a more opportune time to slay the beast. So what if hydrogen ends up twice the price of gasoline. As Ivan noted, hydrogen does not carry the hidden cost baggage of oil. Those savings alone would easily pay for the infrastructure in not very many years. Furthermore, the price would inevitably come down due to technological advances. Apparently the US government is serious about pursuing the hydrogen economy. This could become the most far reaching and important political initiative since the space program. And building the new infrastructure would give an enormous boost to the economy. It be like a war, except the enemy would be oil and no one need die fighting it.

Well Kronos, I have a fool proof way to make your Hydrogen Economy cost competitive with fossil fuels or other sources and do it in a big hurry so you can have it tomorrow.

Simply place a tax of $1million per barrel of oil or oil equivalent natural gas. That will make the use of those fossil fuels prohibitively expensive. Then we can all bask in the clean energy from your hydrogen.

By the way, what about all the green house gas emissions from your hydrogen powered automobiles; what do you plan to do about that ?

[russ_watters]

I really don't think electrical power generation is a much a issue in this thread as portable fuel. Electrical generation capacity will do nothing to replace oil without a viable storage system for such power. That is precisely what hydrogen constitutes - a portable propulsion system energy source. Well, my point has always been that this hydrogen economy talk is moot until we replace the coal in the electric power grid. Otherwise, we're using coal instead of oil to power our cars.

[brewnog]

Absolutely.

For all intents and purposes, Hydrogen is only going to provide us with means of storing energy, not producing it.

[hitssquad]

until we replace the coal in the electric power grid.... we're using coal instead of oil to power our cars.Yes. What might be inadvisable about using coal to power cars?

[Ivan Seeking]

Absolutely.

For all intents and purposes, Hydrogen is only going to provide us with means of storing energy, not producing it.

It would be worth reviewing the thread. :wink:

[hitssquad]

[a GCFR can use the hot waste for fuel until it is exhausted of radioactive energy], and it is cheap to build [the technology is so safe that very little regulatory oversight is needed].http://energy.inel.gov/gen-iv/scwr.shtmlIt requires reprocessing:

The GFR reference has an integrated, on-site spent fuel treatment and refabrication plant.

Has reprocessing been shown to be very safe? Has it been shown to be cheap? Richard Garwin claims that mined uranium would have to cost $700 per kilogram for reprocessing to break even. There are 4.5 billion tons of uranium floating in the oceans. Would it ever cost more than $700 dollars per kilogram to mine it up to the halfway point?

Concrete containment domes are not cheap. Would this reactor filled with transuranics be operated without a containment dome?

[Cliff_J]

By the way, what about all the green house gas emissions from your hydrogen powered automobiles; what do you plan to do about that ?

The emissions are much lower and easier to control on H2.

Russ - our coal reserves are projected to last 200 years. I'll tell my kids to tell their kids to tell their kids to get working on that problem. :biggrin:

[Kenneth Mann]

The emissions are much lower and easier to control on H2.



Correct; there are essentially two possible emissions from hydrogen use. The first, which is a necessary product, is water vapor, which we generally consider beneficial. The second, which we only get from the use of hydrogen in Internal Combustion Engines (not Fuel Cells), is Oxides of Nitrogen. These oxides can be reduced considerably relative to petroleum consumption because we don't have the conflicting need to reduce hydrocarbon emissions.

KM

[russ_watters]

Yes. What might be inadvisable about using coal to power cars? Pollution!!! This is one of the two the main reasons to have a hydrogen economy in the first place! The emissions are much lower and easier to control on H2.

Russ - our coal reserves are projected to last 200 years. I'll tell my kids to tell their kids to tell their kids to get working on that problem. I think you may have missed the point: if hydrogen is manufactured by burning coal, the emissions are higher than with an oil-burning car. With 20,000 people dying from pollution-related ilnesses in the US every year, I consider that our problem, not our childrens' childrens' problem.

[hitssquad]

With 20,000 people dying from pollution-related ilnesses in the US every yearThis is the clean coal compendium:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/cctc

It lists the technologies being devoloped and demonstrated that clean up coal emissions - as far as coal is currently used - and that offer new ways, such as direct conversion to liquid fuels, to use coal. Coal burned to produce electricity does not have to produce the levels of noxious emissions that they do today, and coal used to charge fuels may not have to be burned at all.

As far as the use of coal as a burnable fuel to make electricity, here is the most advanced coal plant ever built, which was recently unveiled in Florida:
http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=7

If coal's air pollution is addressable, perhaps, as Know Nukes' Jim Hoerner tirelessly opines, the major problems will be in the areas of earth scarring, mine-worker hazards, and slurry-pond dam dangers (yes, the slurry pond dams break once in a while):
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/mdaf.html

That is a comprehensive list of slurry dam failures, and most of those failures did not involve coal. However, here is a detailed report of an Oct 11, 2000 coal slurry dam failure in Kentucky:
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/mdafin.html

On Oct 11, 2000, a coal tailings dam of Martin County Coal Corporation's preparation plant near Inez, Kentucky, USA, failed, releasing a slurry consisting of an estimated 250 million gallons (950,000 m3) of water and 155,000 cubic yards (118,500 m3) of coal waste into local streams.

About 75 miles (120 km) of rivers and streams turned an irridescent black, causing a fish kill along the Tug Fork of the Big Sandy River and some of its tributaries. Towns along the Tug were forced to turn off their drinking water intakes.

The spill contained measurable amounts of metals, including arsenic, mercury, lead, copper and chromium, but not enough to pose health problems in treated water, according to a federal official.

The full extent of the environmental damage isn't yet known, and estimates of the cleanup costs go as high as $60 million.

[Cliff_J]

Russ - you didn't include the smiley in the quote - it was intended as sarcasm and I thought with the incredible ignorance included in the statement it would be obvious.

As a collective "we" the current situation has gained too much momentum in the wrong directions. The more I think green, the more I cannot believe the directions not just the US is headed in but also in the developing countries as they repeat the same errors.

The History Channel just re-ran their power plant episode of the series "Modern Marvels" and the numbers shocked me. The big coal plant here in GA burns 30,000 tons of coal a day! If the 20% of the nations power needs (seems higher than other estimates but I'll run with it) supplied by nuclear switched to coal that would add 187 million metric tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

I'm reminded of an article in Car & Driver magazine detailing the CA auto emission laws. In short the lack of effectiveness on overall emissions was elementary school math when the output of power generation and industry was more than an order of magnitude higher. But yet while celeberties will constantly admonish SUVs the power issue is never touched because of the economics. :frown:

One point brought up in the MM show that hasn't been touched here is about the spent fuel from a nuclear plant. Their point was that elected officials didn't want to have to deal with the tons of spent fuel created each year. So while we may be debating the per unit of weight cost of uranium of recycled versus gathered, the overall cost of not recycling and having to store hazardous waste bears part of the cost of preventing progress!

With good leadership and the issues properly addressed (recycle spent fuel, admit faults in 3MI, admit fusion is decades away) there would seemingly be a chance educate the public on progress in nuclear tech in the last 2 1/2 decades and get the country cleaned up. Imagine a system with the peak power plants converted from natural gas to run the turbines on H2. That is H2 generated by the nuclear plants that could use the H2 generation as a load stabilization tool. A utopia compared to our current direction....

Cliff

[russ_watters]

If coal's air pollution is addressable, perhaps, as Know Nukes' Jim Hoerner tirelessly opines, the major problems will be in the areas of earth scarring, mine-worker hazards, and slurry-pond dam dangers (yes, the slurry pond dams break once in a while)... Yes, the problems with coal are addressable (if not completely eliminate-able). But we're still talking about upgrading virtually every existing coal plant and building an equal number of new ones to generate electricity to make hydrogen. That's still a project bigger than the Apollo Program, Hoover Dam, and Manhattan project combined. I'm sorry, but that's still a project that needs to at least be started before any significant shift toward a "hydrogen economy" can be made.

And btw, some of the numbers thrown out in that link (90%, 98% reductions) sound nice, but they aren't long-term solutions.

Tell me this: If we did that for cars, would that end the problem with oil-based pollution? Hardly - especially considering we've already done it: http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/auto-emissions_chronol.htm

Since the first standard in 1975, allowable NOx pollution in cars has been reduced by 99.77%.

Its also important to note that these (your link and mine) don't include, and thus utterly fail to address, the primary greenhouse gas: carbon dioxide.

And here's some fuel for the Kyoto thread: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html The US is currently building 100 new plants (again, none of which address the carbon dioxide issue). There are 1,600 coal electric plants and 1,100 coal manufacturing plants in the US. Pick some conservative numbers for upgrading those (maybe $10 million each?) and building an equal number of new electric generation plants (maybe $1 billion each?) and see what kind of trillions of dollars you get. Russ - you didn't include the smiley in the quote - it was intended as sarcasm and I thought with the incredible ignorance included in the statement it would be obvious. My bad - I thought that was a little strange coming from you. :redface: Nevertheless, its an opinion that has been expressed and didn't hurt to address it again (did I save any face there?).

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

all this bickering about green house gases from coal and oil.... isn't the thread about OTHER power sources? besides... what about the green house gas (CO2) i emit when i breath.. whooo scaaary... yes our environment needs work and yes we're poluting it, but the point of this thread isn't to decide how bad it is, it's to discuss new ways of fixing it.

personally, my vote goes to nuclear electricity and electric cars. if there were recharge stations as common as gas stations are, battery life would not be a major problem. only large vehicles with massive horse-power requirements (semi's, tow trucks, utility vehicles) would have problems converting.

as far as our economy goes, we don't just need a new energy base. oil isn't our only import, and our exports are deliriously few. in fact, off the top of my head, the only major exports the US has are military arms and equipment that we sell to our allies, and we SPEND money on those. where was the airplane invented? the computer? the microwave oven? where was the automobile assembly line first invented? everything we invent in this country gets made in taiwan, and we end up paying more for it.

to really boost our economy we need a product. we need to start selling instead of buying. alternative energy sources would be a big plus IF we could keep the manufacturing within our borders. other countries should be coming to US for their energy, their cars, their electronics... otherwise we're economically doomed, it's only a matter of time.

[Cliff_J]

Russ - no harm, no foul. You really do put a damper on my nice future thoughts though, its not like I or anyone else really want to pay more for electricity but the growth of the polluting plants is really snowballing. How could we ever expect China to play nice when we don't even bother to do so here?

Odd thought too, one of the Science Channel's 2004 review show mentioned that there's been in increase in atmospheric water vapor and that its one of the best greenhouse gasses around. I was dozing off as they were talking about it but it had to do with the introduction of something that reduced the ability of water droplets to form. An H2 economy with lots of water vapor exhaust might compound the problem, what an odd side effect.

Puf - you're taking this way too broad with problems that have no easy solution. Especially not in an elected government system that favors local optimization and short-term methodologies.

Cliff

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

cliff, i was being generic for those who are physicists, not econimists :)
and i realize there's no simple solution, there's about a million simple fixes that could all add up to a solution... IF everyone worked towards them.

[Cliff_J]

I think the "everyone" is the problem. All that seems to be remembered is the first phrase from Kennedy's speech and its all about what the country can do for its people.

Southpark did a humorous satire on the success of a Walmart store. One of the townspeople explained to the others that if they would simply stop buying from the store it would go away. Instead they were either taken in by the super bargins (on imported junk of course) or instead of exercising self-control they just burned the place down as some out-of-control mob.

And yes, a million simple fixes would turn things around and could do so in less than a decade if the people worked together. No panacea to just turn on the H2 spigot without other changes.

Cliff

[hitssquad]

I'm reminded of an article in Car & Driver magazine detailing the CA auto emission laws.Emissions laws regarding what? Is this the article?:
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=2502&page_number=1



In short the lack of effectiveness on overall emissionsEmissions of what?

[Cliff_J]

Sorry, it was an editorial written by the editor Csaba Csere. I can't seem to find it online either, good luck in me finding it in a decade of back issues sitting in boxes...

Here's a few articles online where he makes some of the same points about the ignorant and misguided efforts of lawmakers to really fix the problems.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3418&page_number=1

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3418&page_number=1

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3296&page_number=1

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=4343&page_number=1

Yes he's opinionated and passionate about cars but hey, what more would a person want in the editor of the mag? His figures and logic seem simple and far less stretched than the opposition.

I doubt its worth the effort to research what a coal plant produces for CO2 or NOx or particulate emissions and properly factor those numbers to arrive at a realistic comparison to auto traffic like Csaba did in his write-up. But regardless, fighting only one side of the battle (cars and not power plants) has to register as quite odd. Besides, my eletricity comes from a local dam. :smile:

Cliff

[Aquamarine]

The Dirty Folly of "Clean Coal"
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/clean_coal.html

Coal Combustion, Public Health
and the Environment
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/coal.html

[Chronos]

Not to divert the discussion, but I think the CO2 thing is overblown. Natural emissions of CO2 far exceed those attributable to human activity. This is not to suggest human induced contributions are negligible, only that they are less alarming than advertised. See
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg98rpt/emission.html

[Aquamarine]

Not to divert the discussion, but I think the CO2 thing is overblown. Natural emissions of CO2 far exceed those attributable to human activity. This is not to suggest human induced contributions are negligible, only that they are less alarming than advertised. See
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg98rpt/emission.html

From the document
The most important natural sources of carbon dioxide are releases from the oceans (90 billion metric tons per year), aerobic decay of vegetation (30 billion metric tons), and plant and animal respiration (30 billion metric tons).(4) Known anthropogenic sources (including deforestation) were estimated to account for about 7 billion metric tons of carbon per year in the early 1990s. The principal anthropogenic source is the combustion of fossil fuels, which accounts for about three-quarters of total anthropogenic emissions of carbon worldwide. Natural processes--primarily, uptake by the ocean and photosynthesis--absorb substantially all the naturally produced carbon dioxide and some of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide, leading to an annual net increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of 3.1 to 3.5 billion metric tons.(5)

So even if anthropogenic sources are small compared to natural sources (and absorbtion), these sources may well account for all of the increase in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide.

[hitssquad]

The Dirty Folly of "Clean Coal"
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/clean_coal.htmlThe article at that link includes some vague references to out-of-context conclusions of unnamed GAO reports. It seems to be mostly about President Bush wanting to direct billions of dollars "into the bank accounts of industry amidst a climate of astonishing profitability."



Coal Combustion, Public Health and the Environment
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/coal.htmlThe article at that link does not address clean coal.

[dem45133]

Hello all. I'm a newcomer to this forum and came across this thread through the Newsletter. Didn't go to all the links, but did read/scan the entire set of posts. Interesting concepts, and I thought I'd add my couple of cents to the picture, especially a couple of points I thought were missed or not considered. Its only my humble opinion though.

1) Obviously no easy fix... and no one technology will satisfy everything. Some of the posts seem to forget one primary ingredient. It doesn't matter what the governmental politics are, or even what laws that may be invoked... the world (yes the world... with 3rd world countries are not far behind) is controlled by MONEY. So are wars for that matter. Einstein’s famous equation E=mc^2 may be more aptly defined as "Energy = Money * Control Squared"

You can be sure that all energy generation and use, regardless of the form and type, is controlled first and foremost by those controlling the MONEY and in turn, the investors. That will not be given up easily and IMHO never will. Not to offend any utopian types out there, but this is fact, and it has been throughout history since the first barter. Star Trek's one world government for the planet without money will not happen in time.

2) Given 1, the problem needs to broken into two categories, the first being Stationary energy (i.e. grid electrons), the second Mobile energy (i.e stored E for rolling stock).

IMHO there is only one possible solution for grid electron demand globally... that being nuclear. Of the technical feasibility side of the issues facing massive wind and solar or even space based solar, it is the only technology that could be ramped up in time (IMHO mind you). One of you stated it would take 20 years to come only line with a resurgence... I believe less. We have safe recycling systems already designed now. With a accelerated 24/7 construction regime they could be on-line within three years (or less) from go ahead, but five or ten year Environmental Impact Studies would have to go away... that can be done.

Now if we could only figure out a fission/fusion reaction system with each generating the fuel for the other! There are many physicists that droll profusely over such ideas. We aren't there yet, but we've made great strides in designs that utilize/minimize their waste.

Yes, there will be localized areas that can supplement or even fulfill their needs using technologies suitable to the particulars of their region (i.e geothermal, solar, hydro, etc.) but overall they will not be enough to satisfy world demand.

3) Mobile E... this is even worse than the grid as far as human factors are concerned. The basic FACT IS we are all spoiled rotten with personal transportation... myself included... big time. But even worse is that our entire economy is 100% dependent on it (well... and the grid too). The fact is that since about the mid 30s most people do not live very near (ie. walking or bicycling distance) where they work. The best thing that every happened to build our country's commerce was the interstate highway system.

We are prime examples of the human factors. We chose to live in the country (both born and raised in ag... city life without animals was just not within us). So what does that mean? It means a 100 mile per day commute for my wife and a 140 mile commute per day for me to pay our mortgage and pay the grid cartel. We also can't stand small vehicles, and a car is basically useless to us. A car can not hull grain or hay, and can not pull 14000 lbs. We also know too much about Newton's Laws and are very uneasy in anything weighing less than 5500 lbs. We also have to perform the commute in any weather condition. We also (me especially) have seen entirely too many people operating that have no business operating anything! Some should not be allowed near any machine. But our economy is based on everyone being able to drive to work...so they give licenses to everyone... basically. So yes I need Newton to work in our favor.

With fuel now at $2, our 15 mpg 3/4 ton will have to be relegated to only farm and trailer duty, and I'll have to somehow find a way to commute for less $. Those little midget 4x4s may get mpg, but a 2 ft snow drift 10 ft long will stop them! My 3/4 ton would hardly know it was there. We also live in a very hilly area.... which means hp. Fighting gravity requires work... which means E. For these kind of areas I just can't see hybrids or electrics replacing the ICE. Even the best technology currently or expected to be forthcoming soon can not handle 100% loads for very long. Sometimes there is a need for reserve capacity... try climbing up the hill out of Orange CA (I15), or the one on I5 coming S out of the San ? valley towards LA, or E out of Salt Lake (I80), or Donner’s Pass (I80), or I17 north out of Phoenix towards Flagstaff, or anyone of a few hundred other long pulls.

So as can be seen rural areas present differing conditions, but all require range and reserve E.

Now the high density areas in cities are a different situation. I count my blessings that I am not forced to live in one. Years ago I drove semi OTR and was in almost all the major cities in the US and across almost all its Interstates at one point or another. I was amazed to meet people that had never been out of a 10 block area in their entire life, and they were 70 years old! That is hard for me to fathom, but like I said, I count my blessings. Don't get me wrong... we were NOT silver spoons.... our folks had basically nothing and l grew up in a tenant house on a landowner's farm. Anything we have we worked for and paid for (present Mortgage excepted... bank still has the lion's share of that).

For short commutes in the city or its suburbs, hybrids or electrics may work for some, but since most people also use their vehicles to travel across country to other cities, their limited ranges and charge times would be restrictive. Who do you know that will be willing to wait for hours or even a half an hour for a recharge while on a trip? Where are you going to stack up all these cars being recharged? Think about that. Fuel islands are designed to fill up and leave in no greater than 10 minutes... max. I fill my 30 gallon tank and pay for it in less than 5 minutes, and complain if the pump is slow.

See... no easy solution. From what I have seen, a hydrogen economy is a farce... yes, it initially had appeal, but the transport, storage, and dispersement problems are it's biggest setback. But politically it is a step in the right direction and getting the populous to embrace the need instead of just blissfully ignoring it. This is good.

A liquid state clean burning (or cleanable emissions) pumpable fuel seems the only real option if we are going to keep our current life styles [that’s another issue that will eventually have to change]. So how do we economically build that without using the carbon based fuels from petroleum? Many have attempted this, but the volumes required can not be generated (i.e bio-alcohol, wood alcohol (whoa, and you think the tree huggers are moaning now!), etc.). One wanted to use O2 on an enormous scale... keep in mind we need 20.9% O2, at 18.5% we are in trouble.

So, that’s where we need to focus, (IMHO), a liquid state pumpable fuel or energy medium. So that’s my challenge to everyone that reads this. I've had basic physics and organic chemistry, and am no expert. But, this is the right place to gather the input from thousands of collective minds... sort of like the Borg.



So lets brainstorm it:

The first thing is to define the properties needed:
a) LIQUID (or liquid like) AND PUMPABLE (flowable) at normal temperatures
b) Stable and non degrading during storage and transport
c) Abundant and regenerating source products
d) Volume to btu ratio better than we have now
e) Clean burning (or reacting)
f) Environmentally friendly

One thing that just came to my mind is LIGHT i.e photon energy (not necessarily visible wave lengths). There are now those of you saying... What? But think about it... does it meet the properties? Yes if we could develope the systems or technologies. Perhaps re need to review the pysics and chemistry in photosynthisis again.

Seems to me the electronics and communications industries already do this at tiny scales.... OK, so lets storm.

a) is satified, b) is satified in transport, STORAGE????? needs a tech to store it, but not as heat. c) is satified, i.e the sun, but how to GATHER. Other sources maybe from nuke??? d) satified... basically unlimited depending on concentration. e) likely convert to electons? But what about other forms?
f) on the front side yes, but technologies that use it still need to keep this in mind.



Storm on...
DEM
Hillsboro, OH

[Chronos]

The nuclear option is definitely in play. There is a project already underway called the Next Generation Nuclear Plan [NGNP]. Here is an excerpt from
http://nuclear.gov/home/11-09-04.htmlOne of the laboratory’s first major tasks will be to lead an international research and development effort to create an advanced nuclear energy technology called the Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). The NGNP will be a Generation IV nuclear system that will produce both inexpensive electric power and large quantities of cost-effective hydrogen to support the development of a clean and efficient hydrogen economy in the United States and reduce the Nation’s dependence on imported fossil fuel. This work supports the President’s National Hydrogen Fuel Initiative and is an important element in the development of a clean and efficient hydrogen economy in the United States.
Pretty heady stuff. Two of the leading candidate designs are the Pebble Bed Modulated Reactor [PBMR] and the Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor [GTMHR]. Both are from the HTGR [high temperature gas reactor] family of meltdown proof reactor designs. The PBMR is particularly attractive. It has a short lead time [24 months to construct] and is modular. The units are small by usual standards [160MW] hence generating capacity can based on immediate needs, yet easily expanded to meet short term growth projections. See
https://www.pbmr.com/
http://gt-mhr.ga.com/

[hitssquad]

So lets brainstorm it:

The first thing is to define the properties needed:...
c) Abundant and regenerating source productsWhy would the source need to be regenerating?

[Seafang]

The emissions are much lower and easier to control on H2.
[CLIFF]

Correct; there are essentially two possible emissions from hydrogen use. The first, which is a necessary product, is water vapor, which we generally consider beneficial. The second, which we only get from the use of hydrogen in Internal Combustion Engines (not Fuel Cells), is Oxides of Nitrogen. These oxides can be reduced considerably relative to petroleum consumption because we don't have the conflicting need to reduce hydrocarbon emissions.

KM

Well in the case of hydrogen powered cars, 100% of the emissions consist of greenhouse gas; namely water vapor; so it is not much less as CLIFF asserts.

Same comment. the water vapor emission from internal combustion engines is greater than the CO2 emissions.

As for the nitrogen oxides; that comes from burning the clean air, and has nothing to do with hydrogen. A pure carbon burning IC engine would still make nitrogen oxides.

In fact you could simply use laser heating of the working fluid (air), so that absolutely no hydrogen or carbon was involved except as trace elements in the air and you would still get oxides of nitrogen formed, in an internal combustion engine.

And climate scientists do not regard water vapor as beneficial; it too warms the atmosphere by absorbing radiation. They simply choose to ignore it because it is easier to lay all the blame on carbon dioxide.

None of which explains how we get all the hydrogen in the first place to use as a storage mechanism for energy. The question remains; where do we get the new energy from; regardless of how we decide to store it.

[Chronos]

I have to wonder how difficult it would be to reduce water vapor emissions to an acceptable level, whatever that might be. I suspect the technology already exists. It is true that nitrogen oxides are produced simply by heating air - no fuel required. But, it is also true they are easily reduced to negligible levels when you do not have the corequisite need to remove other hydrocarbon combustion byproducts. A variety of alternative energy sources for hydrogen production have already been noted in this thread. They all have various advantages and disadvantages, as do conventional fossil fuels. That does not mean they are unworkable, or even impractical. It is virtually certain costs would decline over time merely as a consequence of economies of scale. It is also probably safe to assume that technological advances would play a role. While I may have questions that have not been satisfactorily answered in my mind, that does not mean they cannot or will not be solved. It certainly does not mean there is no point in trying. I'm willing to concede I may have limitations that are not universally shared. The horseless carriage had its naysayers. It still turned out to be fairly practical and quite popular.

[Cliff_J]

Seafang - aside from what I posted about certian pollutants decreasing the ability of water droplets to form and thus increasing the level of water vapor in the air, excess water vapor will condense and fall back to earth as precipitation. I don't see how our combustion by-product of water vapor compares to the amounts created by nature itself.

I'd much rather breathe in lots of water vapor than unburned hydrocarbons and particulate matter.

Cliff

[Ivan Seeking]

...Like paint, the composite can be sprayed onto other materials and used as portable electricity. A sweater coated in the material could power a cell phone or other wireless devices. A hydrogen-powered car painted with the film could potentially convert enough energy into electricity to continually recharge the car's battery.

The researchers envision that one day "solar farms" consisting of the plastic material could be rolled across deserts to generate enough clean energy to supply the entire planet's power needs. [continued]
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

Also
ASU researcher gets grant to explore new methods of hydrogen generation

...Neal Woodbury, director of the Center for BioOptical Nanotechnology at the Biodesign Institute, is the principal investigator on the ASU grant, which he says will explore new ways to efficiently convert water into hydrogen. The research will focus on the development of new catalysts – materials that facilitate chemical conversion processes – for converting water to hydrogen. [continued]
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/asu-arg012005.php

[Jake]

QUESTION: As far as water vapor polution, couldn't this be reduced a huge amount simply by running the exaust pipe through some kind of heat disapater, thus turning it into liquid water? Then the water mostly would just off the road into dirt where it would be absorbed... or occasionally on hot days re-vaporize into regular precipiation anyway!

[willib]

Quantum Dots and Tunable Bandgap
The first advantage derived from the use of quantum dots stems from their tunable bandgap, which allows Evident to control the wavelength at which they will absorb or emit radiation. It is established that the greater the bandgap of a solar cell semiconductor, the greater the output voltage provided towards electricity generation. On the other hand, it is established that a lower bandgap results in a higher output of current for electricity generation, at the expense of a lower output voltage. Both high currents and voltages are desired for efficient solar-electric conversion. Thus, there exists an optimum bandgap that corresponds to the highest possible solar-electric energy conversion.Evident is a company btw..

http://www.evidenttech.com/applications/quantum-dot-solar-cells.php
really interresting stuff..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=quantum+dots+Infrared+solar+cells

[Seafang]

I have to wonder how difficult it would be to reduce water vapor emissions to an acceptable level, whatever that might be. I suspect the technology already exists. It is true that nitrogen oxides are produced simply by heating air - no fuel required. But, it is also true they are easily reduced to negligible levels when you do not have the corequisite need to remove other hydrocarbon combustion byproducts. A variety of alternative energy sources for hydrogen production have already been noted in this thread. They all have various advantages and disadvantages, as do conventional fossil fuels. That does not mean they are unworkable, or even impractical. It is virtually certain costs would decline over time merely as a consequence of economies of scale. It is also probably safe to assume that technological advances would play a role. While I may have questions that have not been satisfactorily answered in my mind, that does not mean they cannot or will not be solved. It certainly does not mean there is no point in trying. I'm willing to concede I may have limitations that are not universally shared. The horseless carriage had its naysayers. It still turned out to be fairly practical and quite popular.

I'm not a chemist (at least not a good one) so I am not up on catalytic converters, but I am willing to believe that efficient suppression of nitrogen oxides could be possible if you don't have to worry about carbon by products as well, but I have no idea what the energy consequences of that are.

But I keep hearing complete disconects between methods of 'making hydrogen' and the concept of the conservation of energy. Making hydrogen from any of its common 'ores' will consume more energy than you get from either burning it or running it in your fuel cell. It is the source of THAT energy that everyone is looking for.

As for the water vapor GHG 'pollution', the global warming enthusiasts DO believe it is a problem. They cite heating of the atmosphere by CO2 trapping, as causing more oceanic evaporation, putting water vapor in the atmosphere which causes more warming; a POSITIVE feedback effect.

Of course I believe water vapor emission from vehicles is quite benign. The thermal efficiency of our engines would be higher if liquid water were emitted instead of hot vapors.

But why is everyone concerned about mechanisms that heat the air. The end goal is to cool the planet, and remove the solar energy that was absorbed in the oceans and the ground and ground cover. By far the most efficient mechanism of planetary cooling going on is evaporation of ocean water, into the atmosphere. About 590 calories per gram of energy is transported into the atmosphere, and the heated atmosphere rises (convection) until the water condenses out as raindrops at higher altitudes, thereby depositing that heat in the upper atmosphere, from whence it can be radiated to space. Even better if it can go higher to a colder region and form ice or snow crystals, and deposit another 80 calories per gram of latent heat of freezing. Water or ice clouds reflect sunlight back into space, and they alo absorb incoming sunlight at wavelengths longer than about 700 nanometers, in several water absorption bands from 0.7 out to around 4 microns. That direct absorption of sunlight by water LOWERS the ground level insolation cooling the planet..

If you take the two limit cases of zero water molecules in the atmosphere, and complete saturated water vapor and clouds from ground to 20 km or so all over the entire globe, it is quite apparent that you set in motion effects which will return naturally to the present status quo from either end. There is no evidence that there are multiple stable states in between those two extremes. There is one, that we have now.
Any mechanism that transfers heat energy from the ground/ocean to the atmosphere, whether it be by direct conduction due to contact with the ground, or radiation in the infrared, or evaporation of water, will lead to convective transport of that heat to the upper atmosphere, where it can finally exit to space. Evaporation is the most efficient by a long shot, so it is water vapor which regulates our planet's temperature; not CO2 or other trace gases.

Nonw of which helps us find another source of energy to make hydrogen energy storage medium.

[Ivan Seeking]

From the Energy Research Center of The Netherlands
http://www.waterstof.org/20030725EHECO3-132.pdf

[Seafang]

From the Energy Research Center of The Netherlands
http://www.waterstof.org/20030725EHECO3-132.pdf
An interesting paper; which however dodges the question of where you get hydrogen from.

So long as we have natural gas (fossil fuel) we have no need for the hydrogen; the NG is a perfectly good fuel by itself, providing the energy of combustion of the hydrogen as well as the carbon, and whatever chemical binding energy might be available.
Extracting the hydrogen from the NG has to be an energy losing proposition, so why do it; and you either end up with the same CO2 as before or else a pile of soot to be dealt with. It is still a Ponzi scheme. The problem remains what soures of energy we will have after the fossil fuels age.

As to your citations of cliches by Michio Kaku and other eminents; I don't get the point.

[Ivan Seeking]

An interesting paper; which however dodges the question of where you get hydrogen from.

So long as we have natural gas (fossil fuel) we have no need for the hydrogen; the NG is a perfectly good fuel by itself, providing the energy of combustion of the hydrogen as well as the carbon, and whatever chemical binding energy might be available.
Extracting the hydrogen from the NG has to be an energy losing proposition, so why do it; and you either end up with the same CO2 as before or else a pile of soot to be dealt with. It is still a Ponzi scheme. The problem remains what soures of energy we will have after the fossil fuels age.

If you look at the original article that motivates this thread, you will see that after converting NG to H2, the well to wheels efficiency of H2 fuel cells, for example, is better than NG powered fuel cells. This includes producing the Hydrogen from NG. The "soot" to be disposed of is valuable, high grade carbon that can be sold, which adds even more economic efficiency to the process. As for sources, this question is the primary point of this thread. You might also review the promise of ocean hydrates. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58374

As to your citations of cliches by Michio Kaku and other eminents; I don't get the point.

I think you do, which is why you chose to comment. :wink:

[shrumeo]

From the document


So even if anthropogenic sources are small compared to natural sources (and absorbtion), these sources may well account for all of the increase in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide.
I tend to agree.

If we think of the Earth as mostly a closed system (except for the stray meteorite) then you have to fix carbon as fast as you oxidize it if you want to keep the atmosphere with the same amount of CO2 (does it matter?)

Unless photosynthesis can catch up with the rate that we dig carbon out of the ground and put it into the atmosphere, then there will always be a net increase in CO2.

QUESTION: As far as water vapor polution, couldn't this be reduced a huge amount simply by running the exaust pipe through some kind of heat disapater, thus turning it into liquid water? Then the water mostly would just off the road into dirt where it would be absorbed... or occasionally on hot days re-vaporize into regular precipiation anyway!

Yeah, you'd be adding to the local humidity. Maybe if we all start driving in the desert it won't be so arid anymore. :wink:
I dunno if this is even something to worry about.

Evident is a company btw..

http://www.evidenttech.com/applications/quantum-dot-solar-cells.php
really interresting stuff..
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=quantum+dots+Infrared+solar+cells
Don't get any CdSe on you or in you! :eek:

That would be the main complaint with this technology.
You'd be painting you sweater with quite toxic stuff.

Also, I can't see these cells in anything but niche markets, mainly because of the way the quantum dots are produced and their toxicity.

I think though that the use of the HIGHLY toxic dimethyl cadmium as a precusor has been replaced by the use of cadmium oxide for large scale preps.

But, think of the stink over lead in paint and then realize you'd be painting everything with cadmium (which isn't quite as toxic as mercury).

There are ways around this, by coating the particles with something moire inert, but eventually and inevitably, the Cd and Se will both leach out to wreak their havoc.

Anyway, people won't stand for it (even if it won't hurt them).

[Ivan Seeking]

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Significant advances in university research and other studies in the past two years are pointing toward Oregon as the possible epicenter of wave energy development in the United States.
This may lead to a major initiative to expand a technology that is now in its engineering infancy, and tap the constant heave of the oceans for a new era of clean, affordable and renewable electrical power.

Electrical engineers at Oregon State University have pioneered the development of technologies to take advantage of wave power in ways that are reliable, maintainable and able to survive a hostile ocean environment. The OSU College of Engineering also has a host of other facilities that would make it an ideal site for more advanced research.

Last fall, the Electric Power Research Institute finished a study which concluded that a site off Reedsport, Ore., would be the optimal location in the entire nation to develop a wave energy test and demonstration facility. [continued]
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/osu-oml020105.php

[ohwilleke]

Keep in mind that lots of industrial processes already generate water vapor, probably in greater volumes than cars operating on hydrogen would. For example, coal burned in power plants has a significant water contents that is converted to steam.

It is hard to see hydrogen fuel emmission being significant compared, for example to vaporization of water from the surfaces of oceans that make up 70% of the planet. Moreover, if water is the source of the water vapor, you could end up having a source and sink that balance out. There is no obvious reason that increased water emissions increase atmopheric carrying capacity for water vapor significantly.

[Seafang]

If you look at the original article that motivates this thread, you will see that after converting NG to H2, the well to wheels efficiency of H2 fuel cells, for example, is better than NG powered fuel cells. This includes producing the Hydrogen from NG. The "soot" to be disposed of is valuable, high grade carbon that can be sold, which adds even more economic efficiency to the process. As for sources, this question is the primary point of this thread. You might also review the promise of ocean hydrates. http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=58374



I think you do, which is why you chose to comment. :wink:


Well Ivan, I am quite used to presenting my thoughts and beliefs in words, either spoken or written; so I would caution against INFERRING anything from anything I say or write. If I wanted to IMPLY anything, I would state it specifically; so when I said "I don't get the point", I MEAN EXACTLY THAT. (fancy that the caps lock came on by itself, and I didn't mean to shout).

Each of the persons you cited is eminent in his field as a scientist or engineer. None of them is eminent in the field of philosphy.

[Chronos]

Well Ivan, I am quite used to presenting my thoughts and beliefs in words, either spoken or written; so I would caution against INFERRING anything from anything I say or write. If I wanted to IMPLY anything, I would state it specifically; so when I said "I don't get the point", I MEAN EXACTLY THAT. (fancy that the caps lock came on by itself, and I didn't mean to shout).

Each of the persons you cited is eminent in his field as a scientist or engineer. None of them is eminent in the field of philosphy.And you make arguments that make no sense. I agree with Ivan. By the way, what in the world does philosophy have to do with this discussion? I thought we were talking about science. I don't get your point either, assuming you even have one.

[Ivan Seeking]

"Ethanol has the potential to be an integral part of the emerging hydrogen economy. Its properties make it an excellent liquid fuel for the extraction of hydrogen."
October 29, 2004
Des Plaines, Illinois [RenewableEnergyAccess.com]

Ethanol is commonly touted as an alternative fuel suitable for any vehicle. Researchers from the Gas Technology Institute (GTI) have produced hydrogen from the corn-based product, however, and that could shift ethanol into a whole new fuel market.

For the past six months GTI engineers have done research to demonstrate the potential of its fuel processor technology that is used to generate hydrogen from a variety of renewable fuels. A steam powered two-step, reforming-shift fuel processor is used for the conversion.

"We believe GTI is now strongly positioned to develop and deploy both stationary and transportation energy systems utilizing ethanol to hydrogen reformation," said Gerry Runte, who is the executive director of GTI's Hydrogen Systems Center. "We were able to produce a high-quality hydrogen gas from ethanol, similar to results using natural gas, and demonstrated our process to representatives of the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA)."

GTI is also developing a fueling station platform for a natural gas to hydrogen fueling station, and the institute would like to create an ethanol to hydrogen station based off of the same plans. Researchers are also pursuing the use of ethanol for stationary fuel cell demonstrations.

"Ethanol has the potential to be an integral part of the emerging hydrogen economy. Its properties make it an excellent liquid fuel for the extraction of hydrogen," said Runte.

The institute has over three decades of experience in converting a variety of fuels into hydrogen, according to the company press release. They use an optional passive carbon monoxide (CO) control system that consistently produces less than 4 ppm CO without requiring complicated control systems. The unit is adaptable to use either fuel cell anode recycle gas or pressure swing adsorption off-gas recovery for efficient supplemental heat generation.

http://www.maui-tomorrow.org/issuespages/energy/ethanol_hydrogen.html

[ohwilleke]

Ethanol is probably more practical in the short to medium term as a liquid fuel replacement than as a hydrogen replacement. The biggest problem with ethanol is that even using a large portion of the entire agricultural output of the United States you are making only a modest dent in U.S. oil consumption.

Ethanol may ultimate be the primary liquid hydrocarbon fuel when oil supplies grow very expense to tap. But, it is not a good total solution.

[Ivan Seeking]

I think a key concept in all of this is diversification. The beauty of using H2 as the base energy carrier is that it allows for a standardized fuel that has many, many sources. I would expect that any number of competitive methods for H2 production will emerge. Some will be based on existing hydrocarbons sources such as ocean hydrates and natural gas, coal, ethanol and the like, and others will come from biomass consumption and other bacterial processes. I suspect that wind to H2 through water will prove viable in wind friendly areas, solar to H2 will be used in solar friendly areas. Even nuclear energy may be used to make the stuff. Also, as the economic benefits of a hydrogen economy become clear, industry will find many ways to produce H2 for resale as as byproduct of existing processes.

If one reviews the first page of this thread and the many links throughout, one will see that dozens of promising methods are explored for H2 production.

[Seafang]

A review of the links given in the Hydrogen thread addresses the many methods explored for producing H2.

Russ, I think your concerns are completely valid. You and I have already hashed this out pretty well in the thread linked and I realize that we disagree on questions of production. I will only say that this is a core issue being addressed on many fronts, and that many scientists feel that this is not a show stopper; but that much work is still needed.

By no means is this a done deal. To "Go Hydrogen" could still mean many different things depending on how the technologies pan out.

Finally, I make no bones about my motives here. I think we need many brains filled with thoughts of Hydrogen. Politically, economically, scientifically, and environmentally, H2 strikes me as our best hope to finally end our addiction to oil. The political motivation is now more obvious than ever. Bye bye OPEC!

Well so we get off our addiction to oil, and we make hydrogen; well the natural critters make it for us out of sunlight. So what Hydorgen ore do you suggest they use.

Is it Water? Tell us how many hydrogen production technologies (of the natural non man made kind) start of with water as the hydrogen ore. Is it a number greater than zero. I'll bet that most if not all don't start with water; they start with some sort of hydrocarbon, and we immediately remove coal oil and natural gas from the list no fossil fuels allowed remember. that leaves probably some plant materials; bu they are still hydrocarbons; ethanol is a hydrocarbon.

SO WHA T DO WE DO WITH ALL THE SOOT.

[Ivan Seeking]

Those are not only silly questions, they are also already answered in the many links provided. Read and learn.

[Ivan Seeking]

SO WHA T DO WE DO WITH ALL THE SOOT.

And I already answered this.
The "soot" to be disposed of is valuable high grade carbon that can be sold

Right now much of it goes into the air as carbon monoxide and dioxide. Much better.

[Chronos]

Perhaps a cowpie economy is worth exploring. Judging by this thread, it appears to be a renewable energy source.

[Ivan Seeking]

Could you elaborate a bit?

[Ivan Seeking]

It can reach 50mph in 12 seconds, produces no emissions and is as quiet as a laptop computer - but that could be a problem.

...But engineers are considering adding an artificial "vroom" as they were worried its silence might be dangerous. [cpntinued]
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1321345.html?menu=

Some engineers were talking about this issue of sound on the recent SA Frontiers special about Hydrogen. One person mentioned that electric cars will be very boring as race cars. It is hard to imagine a field of nearly silent Grand Prix cars gearing down for the hairpin turn.

[hitssquad]

One person mentioned that electric cars will be very boring as race cars.Why might race cars run on electricity instead of gasoline?

[Ivan Seeking]

Have you seen the T-Zero? http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm

Already we have an electric car that outperforms most high performance autos. Also, IIRC, the advanced concepts engineers at GM were interviewed and I am citing their expectations.

I am pretty sure that the show can be watched online....in fact there should be a link in this thread. edit: Also, I am pretty sure that the prototype could do 0-60 in 3.0 seconds. The production car is claiming 4.1 seconds.

[Ivan Seeking]

This is it.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1403/

[Chronos]

I agree with Ivan. Viable alternatives to hydrocarbon energy sources are well inside the radar screen. Already the nuclear option has become politically viable. I predict at least 50% of new energy production in the US will be fission based by the end of this century - nuclear power will come back with a vengeance. The advantages, particularly given technological advances, are too attractive to ignore any longer. Engineers will once again save the day! If it's any reassurance, the fate of humanity lies in people like me... plays spooky music

[Ivan Seeking]

Hah! A nuclear fan. :biggrin:
What convinces you that we can operate nuclear plants safely. That is to say, what new nuclear energy technologies make this a viable approach?

[hitssquad]

Viable alternatives to hydrocarbon energy sources are well inside the radar screen.Features vs. benefits. What was questioned was not the existence of alternatives to hydrocarbons. What was questioned was the benefit of switching.

[hitssquad]

Have you seen the T-Zero?The T-Zero runs on chemical energy cell batteries, not on fuel cells. Are you talking about race cars running on batteries or fuel cells? Do you know what specific energy and specific power are? Do you know how much energy is in a typical gallon of gasoline? Do you know what the efficiency of conversion of fuel cells currently is and what it is expected to eventually be?

[Ivan Seeking]

I repeated the quote about electric cars. I never said anything about fuel cells.

Edit: oh yes, yes, yes, and yes. Get a grip.

[hitssquad]

The motorcycle you linked to runs on a fuel cell. Do you think on-road electric vehicles might run better on batteries, fuel cells or something else? What might electric race cars run better on?

[Chronos]

Hah! A nuclear fan. :biggrin:
What convinces you that we can operate nuclear plants safely. That is to say, what new nuclear energy technologies make this a viable approach?Elementary, my dear Ivan. I've been instrumental in building 3 of them. They have all been operational for at least 20 years and not a single one has suffered a melt down - and I've also been nominated for village idiot for the 5th straight year. It's not a large village, but a village nonetheless. :smile:

Check out these designs. They are pretty impressive:

https://www.pbmr.com/
http://gt-mhr.ga.com/

[Ivan Seeking]

Do these use ceramic coated Pu pellets?

Enlighten us about melt-down proof technologies. A friend of mine was working on this but he is now retired, leaving me out of the loop. Also, can you tell us anything about fast-flux reactor technologies?

[hitssquad]

Do these use ceramic coated Pu pellets?They use graphite pellets, each containing a tiny flake of uranium. PBMRs are illegal to implement in the United States because they are so dangerous (the graphite can burn and the reactor is intended to be built without a containment, meaning that each of the thousands of mass-produced pellets needs to have its integrity assured to the same degree that single containments need to have their integrity assured today). Other countries are interested in them though.

[Ivan Seeking]

The ceramic approach seemed promising. In principle the separation between the Pu beads [pellet cores] assures that a meltdown is impossible. The ceramics can withstand any temperature that might be reached in the event of a catastrophic cooling failure.

[Chronos]

The PBMR design uses a silicon carbide coating on the fuel elements, not graphite [where did that come from?]. Reading the links is recommended. There is no meltdown risk. The status of design reviews in the US can be found here:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.html

[hitssquad]

The ceramic approach seemed promising.As far as I know, there is no such thing as a ceramic approach as regards PBMR fuel pebbles. The PBMR is a slow-neutron reactor. Slow-neutron reactors need neutron moderators. The PBMR uses graphite in its fuel pebbles to slow (moderate) the neutrons.



In principle the separation between the Pu beads [pellet cores]https://www.pbmr.com/3_pbmr_technical_info/pbmr_technical_contents.htm#PBMRFuel

--
The fuel particles (kernels) consist of uranium dioxide.
--



The ceramics can withstand any temperature that might be reached in the event of a catastrophic cooling failure.PBMRs, with their graphite fuel pebbles, can also withstand any temperature reached during a loss-of-coolant accident — provided there are no complicating circumstances. If burning jet fuel is dumped on the pebbles (which can easily happen since there is no containment shell for the reactor), they might burn and atmospherically-release tons of aerosolized high-level radioactive waste.

[hitssquad]

The PBMR design uses a silicon carbide coating on the fuel elements, not graphitehttps://www.pbmr.com/3_pbmr_technical_info/pbmr_technical_contents.htm#PBMRFuel

--
The coated particles are embedded in a graphite matrix as a 50 mm sphere, called the fuel zone.

Adding a 5 mm thick fuel-free graphite zone makes up the fuel sphere with an outer diameter of 60 mm.
--



There is no meltdown risk.If the graphite burns partly away, the fission fuel might become close enough together for a runaway reaction and subsequent meltdown to occur. Even of there isn't a meltdown, atmospheric fission-product release is possible if the graphite burns.

[Ivan Seeking]

As far as I know, there is no such thing as a ceramic approach as regards PBMR fuel pebbles.

There was. Perhaps things didn't work out.

[Ivan Seeking]

If gasoline reaches $4.00 a gallon as hinted at by the Bush administration today... Even at $3.00 a gallon we are quicky approaching the point where alternative technologies can compete.

[Seafang]

Those are not only silly questions, they are also already answered in the many links provided. Read and learn.

I don't think they are silly questions at all. all of those things you point to are supposedly sources of energy. Good; that's what we need is energy; so why go through the useless step of making hydrogen which we don't need; we need energy.

No amount of prestidigitation is going to evade the problem that we will have to use existing or new sources of energy to make hydrogen to do the same things we could do with that very energy withoput making hydrogen.

I believe it was Franz Kafka, who told a story about a region with a river running through it, and a town on each side of the river, both of them highly prosperous.

Everybody in the town on the west side of the river worked all day at the one factory in town, making marbles out of clay. They imported the finest finely ground clay materials and using the finest molding machinery that swiss engineering could devise, they cleverly molded that clay into perfectly spherical round marbles which the town exported to support all the population.

On the east side of the river, the second prosperous town also had but one factory where everybody worked. The factory had the finest German crushing machinerey that the human mind could conceive, and they all used those machines to produce the most beautiful finely powdered clay material from round marbles of the stuff that they imported in large sacks.

Everybody was kept happy, making hydrogen and then burning it.

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't think they are silly questions at all. all of those things you point to are supposedly sources of energy. Good; that's what we need is energy; so why go through the useless step of making hydrogen which we don't need; we need energy.

The point that you seem to keep missing is that there are about a hundred links in this thread and linked threads that answer your questions. Many renewable energy sources are promising, or even succeeding in some markets. I'm not about to list them all again. If you read, you will see that they are already discussed in this thread, and the original archived thread, linked on page one. The real point here is to track the progress of various approaches and to see which are most practical. Also, as suggested by Chronos, even nuclear power may be a part of the solution.

[Ivan Seeking]

Note: I think part but not all of this was previously posted and available online. Either way, in case you missed it...

If the fuel cell is to become the modern steam engine, basic research must provide breakthroughs in understanding, materials, and design to make a hydrogen−based energy system a vibrant and competitive force.

George W. Crabtree, Mildred S. Dresselhaus, and Michelle V. Buchanan
Since the industrial revolution began in the 18th century, fossil fuels in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas have powered the technology and transportation networks that drive society. But continuing to power the world from fossil fuels threatens our energy supply and puts enormous strains on the environment. The world's demand for energy is projected to double by 2050 in response to population growth and the industrialization of developing countries.1 The supply of fossil fuels is limited, with restrictive shortages of oil and gas projected to occur within our lifetimes (see the article by Paul Weisz in Physics Today, July 2004, page 47). Global oil and gas reserves are concentrated in a few regions of the world, while demand is growing everywhere; as a result, a secure supply is increasingly difficult to assure. Moreover, the use of fossil fuels puts our own health at risk through the chemical and particulate pollution it creates. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions that are associated with global warming threaten the stability of Earth's climate.

A replacement for fossil fuels will not appear overnight. Extensive R&D is required before alternative sources can supply energy in quantities and at costs competitive with fossil fuels, and making those alternative sources available commercially will itself require developing the proper economic infrastructure. Each of those steps takes time, but greater global investment in R&D will most likely hasten the pace of economic change. Although it is impossible to predict when the fossil fuel supply will fall short of demand or when global warming will become acute, the present trend of yearly increases in fossil fuel use shortens our window of opportunity for a managed transition to alternative energy sources.

Hydrogen as energy carrier [continued]
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/p39.html

For the pdf: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/PDF/vol57no12p39-45.pdf

[hitssquad]

Do you think fuel cells are ever going to compete against gasoline, Ivan?

[Ivan Seeking]

Do you think fuel cells are ever going to compete against gasoline, Ivan?

I would think so. The automotive designers are already heavily invested in fuel cell technologies, and with gasoline expected to reach as much as $4.00 a gallon soon... When we think about these things, we tend to think in terms of today's prices. Wait until gas here is $6.00 like in other countries. Also, as I have argued all along, if we include the real costs of oil, which includes war and many of the world's ills, fuel cells and alternative fuels are already cheap.

Of course [insert several explitives here] Bush favors making fuel cells that run on gasoline. :mad:

[hitssquad]

if we include the real costs of oilIt is one thing to cite externalities, and another to imply that people consider externalities when making purchasing decisions. We are talking about whether fuel cells will ever compete against gasoline. Indicative of the lack of consumer motive for seeking alternative fuel technologies might be the facts that fuel-economical vehicles are persistently unpopular and that yearly vehicle miles travelled continually rises.

[Ivan Seeking]

First, as indicated, fuel cells and gasoline are not mutually exclusive. Next, orders for Hybrid vehicles are off the charts, in some case at least. As for your assertion that fuel economical vehicles are continually unpopular, I assume that you drive a Buick? It seems that you forget what we used to drive.

Also, test electric vehicles distributed by GM - the EV1 - were tremendously popular among those who were lucky enough [by their accounts] to get one. So I don't really see the basis for your arguments. Needless to say that this all neglects the coming reality of $4, and eventually $6 per gallon, and more. Finally, the ever increasing taxes on fuel are no accident, and externalities justify even more tax; much, much more.

The costs to all of us in money, environmental damage, health related issues and costs, which are huge btw, political agendas, military expenditures, etc, etc, and ultimately the cost in lives associated with the petro-economy are all very real. The benefits of an H2 economy - which appears to include H2 powered fuel cells - in all respects are equally real. So it not only makes sense on a personal/financial level, it makes sense from macro-economic and political perspectives as well; at the right time.

If you feel that alternative fuels are practical, but not fuel cells, I can only defer to the automotive engineers and designers who should know. They seem to feel that these will emerge as a practical technology. I think it will take time, and transitional technologies may be more practical; perhaps even H2 combustion engines, as some companies are working on this. I also liked your hydrogen pellets linked some pages ago. Those seem promising [edit] but I was concerned about the efficiency of the entire process. Of course, you bypass all sorts of problems by having a solid to transport and store, rather than a high pressure gas. So it seems to me that any additional energy costs in the production of these pellets might be recaptured in the distribution system.

[hitssquad]

I also liked your hydrogen pellets linked some pages ago.Boron?
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html

[Ivan Seeking]

Boron?
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/Paper_for_11th_CHC.html

Hmmm, I may be mixing up your post with the pellets discussed in the Nova special. I thought that you had posted something very similar, but not Boron.


An intersting story today:
Windmills in the Sky
Australian engineer Bryan Roberts wants to build a power station in the sky -- a cluster of flying windmills soaring 15,000 feet in the air -- but is having trouble raising enough money to get the project off the ground.

After 25 years of research, Roberts has designed a helicopter-like rotorcraft to hoist a wind turbine high into the air, where winds are persistent and strong. The craft, which is powered by its own electricity and can stay aloft for months, feeds electricity to the ground through a cable.

Roberts, a professor of engineering at the University of Technology, Sydney, believes there is enough energy in high-altitude winds to satisfy the world's demands. Wind-tunnel data suggests a cluster of 600 flying electric generators, or FEGs, could produce three times as much energy as the United States' most productive nuclear power plant. [continued]
http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,67121,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

[Ivan Seeking]

The quest for a new form of green energy has taken a significant step with the purchase of a 25,000-acre sheep farm in the Australian outback. The huge alternative energy project isn't driven by manure, but by a 1-kilometer-high thermal power station called the Solar Tower.

Announced several years ago, the 3,280-foot Solar Tower is one of the most ambitious alternative energy projects on the planet: a renewable energy plant that pumps out the same power as a small reactor but is totally safe. If built, it will be nearly double the height of the world's tallest structure, the CN Tower in Canada.

..."Solar chimneys (towers) have become a hot area of research recently," said S.A. Sherif, a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at the University of Florida, who wrote several papers on the technology in the early 1990s and is the technical editor of the Solar Energy Journal (http://www.ises.org/ises.nsf/0/8eb9a73ea902c053c12568be004fa01a?OpenDocument). Although expensive to build, solar towers "essentially produce energy for free," said Sherif. In addition, the technology has been proven to work: A 650-foot solar tower was built in Manzanares, Spain, in 1981 by German structural engineers Schlaich Bergermann and Partner. Producing 50 kilowatts, it operated for seven years. But with oil prices at $15 a barrel in the mid-1980s, there was little interest in building a larger one, Sherif said. [continued]
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66694,00.html

[Ivan Seeking]

Please see also the new posts above:

About H2 ICE: Internal Combustion Engines. They're here...
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=70653

Also, this seems to be a very cool site and one that I have never seen:
H2 CARSBIZ
http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/index.shtml

[Cliff_J]

I thought the general consensus a while back was the solar tower is bogus and a borderline urban myth. That basically its extremely tough to pump water to the levels described and the structure would be incredibly expensive to build along with other issues that would need to be carefully managed. Managed so well that most figures (as I recall) showed a negative energy output.

[Ivan Seeking]

I thought the general consensus a while back was the solar tower is bogus and a borderline urban myth. That basically its extremely tough to pump water to the levels described and the structure would be incredibly expensive to build along with other issues that would need to be carefully managed. Managed so well that most figures (as I recall) showed a negative energy output.

I hadn't heard of this effort or what you describe. Could that have been something else? I didn't see that this would require pumping water.

It seems that Wired does push the edge a bit, but the claims of earlier efforts are quite specific.

[hitssquad]

I thought the general consensus a while back was the solar tower is bogus and a borderline urban myth. That basically its extremely tough to pump water to the levels describedIt channels rising hot air which drives turbines. It doesn't use water:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66694,00.html

--
The Solar Tower is hollow in the middle like a chimney. At its base is a solar collector -- a 25,000-acre, transparent circular skirt. The air under the collector is heated by the sun and funneled up the chimney by convection -- hot air rises. As it rises, the air accelerates to 35 mph, driving 32 wind turbines inside the tower, which generate electricity much like conventional wind farms.
--

[Billy T]

I only read last page and first two of this long thread, so hope i am not repeating. Most energy is in some form "solar energy" (coal old version, fission even older and not from our sun but earlier star) Only exception is tidal power. As many have pointed out, hydrogen is not an energy source. Most would prefer to live off the current solar input, stop burning fossil fuels, avoid nuclear, etc. The hydrogen economy could do so, but it will still take a lot of area as sunlight is not very concentrated. Few realise that solar cell generated electricity can not compete with the current sources even if the solar cells had zero cost the so called "BOS cost" (Balance of System) for land, structures, periodic repair,cleaning, conversion to AC from the DC generated, lots of interconnect wires, and a few other items are too expensive.

So what can one do? Use a natural solar energy collection system (sugar cane). It has about the same or slightly better efficiency than common economical solar cells (and the theoretical limit is 21% for any based on silicon, which is nearly ideal for the solar spectrum)

Production of a liquid fuel (alcohol) from sugar cane is easy and relatively cheap. The residue is good for feed to cattle, enrich the soil, and sequester carbon - I.e. removes CO2 from the air economically as only vegetation (green algie is "vegetation") can. Brazil were I live has been running cars on alcohol in large numbers for a couple of decades. Currently alcohol cost about R$1.20 /liter and gasoline about R$2.20 i.e. alcohol is much less costly and there is no funny economics in this. I don't have the current sales data but bet 9 out of 10 new cars sold in Brazil will run on alcohol.

Brazil would love to sell it to US and their well developed alcohol/ gas in any ratio motors. It is so cheap here because land and labor are cheap, the growing season is 12 months each year. Obviously the corn growing farmers of Iowa and their market for octane enhancement etc. "gasohol" would suffer if Brazil were allowed to export to US. Also important is fact that no Brazilian votes were available or of interested to a US government dominated by former oil company owners and related industry CEOs.

Never mind new hydrogen economy - get some real economy now with 20 year old Brazilian technology. Remove US import barriers.

[russ_watters]

I thought the general consensus a while back was the solar tower is bogus and a borderline urban myth. That basically its extremely tough to pump water to the levels described and the structure would be incredibly expensive to build along with other issues that would need to be carefully managed. Managed so well that most figures (as I recall) showed a negative energy output. Are you thinking of the guy who wanted to pump fuel into space on a carbon nanotube tether/pipe?

No, as others have said, the solar tower idea just uses solare heating of the desert and would work - in theory. But that "in theory" part is a real kicker: The worlds tallest freestanding structure is about 500m high. They want to build a 1000m tower. Doesn't seem too realistic to me from an engineering standpoint.

Oh, and the other problem is that the company that's proposing it is a scam.

edit: I'm not a big fan of Wired - they publish a lot of crap, but this is a little rediculous: But the purchase of the farm, which cost $1 million, near Mildura, Victoria, is a "very big step" in getting the project built, Davey said.

So far, the main impediment to building the tower has been the cost, with estimates ranging from $500 million to $750 million. Hmm... obtaining 1/750th of the needed funding (guestimated) is "a very big step"?

And this land - at $185 an acre? I'm guessing its in the middle of nowhere.

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh, and the other problem is that the company that's proposing it is a scam.

edit: I'm not a big fan of Wired - they publish a lot of crap, but this is a little rediculous: Hmm... obtaining 1/750th of the needed funding (guestimated) is "a very big step"?

And this land - at $185 an acre? I'm guessing its in the middle of nowhere


Why do you call it a scam? I agree that it could be, but this could just be a matter of pioneers blazing trails. Do you have some specific information about this company or the people involved?

[Ivan Seeking]

It's a typo. Powerball.net is a hydrogen economy technology site.


The concept behind Powerball Technologies is to tame energy, (so to speak) and to store one powerful element - sodium (or sodium hydride) - in order to later get Hydrogen on Demand.

Powerball fuel pelletsTM store and produce hydrogen on demand. Each gallon of powerball fuel pellets produces hundreds of gallons of hydrogen upon contact with water on an as-needed basis. Powerball fuel pelletsTM offer a safe, compact, and inexpensive alternative to the delivery, storage and use of compressed or liquid hydrogen for a wide range of applications which require a clean source of hydrogen.

Here it is. Dead link.

[Ivan Seeking]

This is a list of all good links to date - posted in this and the parent thread:
A Hydrogen economy: Be a part of the change! http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=4127

Posted approximately in the order discussed:
[Please post a note if any links are bad.]

Scientific American Frontiers: Future Cars [Watch the video online]
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1403/index.html

Questions about a Hydrogen Economy; Scientific American
http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=CB826BAE-2B35-221B-6E2587

F29CF2C88A&ARTICLEID_CHAR=CB9BE5E6-2B35-221B-6F2461DEF9B52B9C&sc=I100322

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
U. S. Department of Energy
Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative Nuclear
http://www.nuclear.gov/infosheets/hydrogenfactmarch2003.pdf

The National Hydrogen Association
http://www.hydrogenus.com/

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/iea/

http://www.geocities.com/mj_17870/index.html

http://education.lanl.gov/resources/h2/education.html

http://www.stuartenergy.com/

HYDROGEN AND THE MATERIALS OF A SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE
WORLD WIDE WEB SITE
Hosted by: Los Alamos National Laboratories
http://education.lanl.gov/resources/h2/education.html

International Energy Agency Hydrogen Program
http://www.ieahia.org/

Includes discussion of
BIOMASS TO H2
DIRECT PRODUCTION FROM WHOLE BIOMASS
Gasification
Thermal/Steam/Partial Oxidation
PRODUCTION OF STORABLE INTERMEDIATES FROM BIOMASS PARTIAL CONVERSION
Small scale reformer technologies
Photovoltaic cells plus an electrolyzer
Photoelectrochemical cells with one or more semiconductor electrodes
Photobiological systems
Photodegradation systems
Photoelectrolytic and Photobiological Production of Hydrogen

Case Studies of Integrated Hydrogen Energy Systems
http://www.ieahia.org/case_studies.html

Hydrogen by Catalytic Decomposition of Water [search "Hydrogen"]
http://www.netl.doe.gov/
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6,468,499.WKU.&OS=PN/6,468,499&RS=PN/6,468,499

Also at the site above: search Hydrogen
HYDROGEN FROM COAL
DENSE CERAMIC MEMBRANES FOR HYDROGEN SEPARATION

Hydrogen - The Department of Energy
http://www.energy.gov/engine/content.do?BT_CODE=ES_HYDROGEN
Time to Escape from the Grid: Wired Magazine
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,60089,00.html

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/7/10/1

First two myths about renewable energy need to be dispelled
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/14/6/2/2

Fuel cells: environmental friend or foe?
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/6/10/1

More on fuel cells
http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/7/2/1

Hydrogen Safety Facts
http://www.hydrogenus.com/H2-Safety-Fact-Sheet.pdf

Hydrogen at Home; The H2 Horizon: Re Iceland, which has gone H2 already
http://www.loe.org/ETS/organizations.php3?action=printContentItem&orgid=33&typeID=18&itemID=204&User_Session=63e33af74b5bc33216035afa351f1a58

Fuel from water [credibility of author unknown]
http://www.lindsaybks.com/bks/hydrogen/index.html

Gas Hydrages
http://www.fe.doe.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/
http://oceanusmag.whoi.edu/v42n2/whelan.html
http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/who.html

The NHA's Hydrogen Commercialization Plan
http://www.hydrogenus.com/commercializationplan.asp

The NHA's Hydrogen Implementation Plan
http://www.hydrogenus.com/implementationplan.asp

Multi-step metal oxide cycles for solar-thermal water splitting"
http://www.colorado.edu/che/TeamWeimer/perkins.htm
http://www.pre.ethz.ch/cgi-bin/main.pl?research?project6

Solar Production Of Zinc: Concentrated solar energy is used as the source of process heat for the dissociation of zinc oxide
http://solar.web.psi.ch/daten/projekt/zno/roca/roca.html

Mechanical Engineering "Power & Energy," March 2004 -- "Packaging Sunlight," Feature Article
http://www.memagazine.org/pemar04/pckgsun/pckgsun.html

Analysis of Solar Thermochemical Water-Splitting Cycles for Hydrogen
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:QW1h_s4sffcJ:www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/iie2_raissi.pdf+%22high+flux+solar+furnace%22+effi ciency+cost+problems&hl=en

Concentrating Photovoltaics: Collaborative Opportunities within DOE’s CSP and PV Programs
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy02osti/31143.pdf

Rapid Solar-thermal Dissociation of Natural Gas in an Aerosol Flow Reactor
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:fxROmv920-wJ:www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/32405a15.pdf+%22high+flux+solar+furnace%22+efficie ncy+cost+problems&hl=en

1. Union of Concerned Scientists www.ucsusa.org.
2. American Methanol Institute www.methanol.org.
3. Fuel Cells 2000 www.fuelcells.org.
4. California Air Resources Board www.arb.ca.gov.
5. National Hydrogen Association www.hydrogenus.com.
6. Los Alamos National Laboratory (see below)
7. California Fuel Cell Partnership www.drivingthefuture.org.
8. The US Fuel Cell Council www.usfcc.com.
9. California Hydrogen Business Council www.ch2bc.org/

White House press release
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-2.html

Also, search "Hydrogen"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Fuel Cells
http://education.lanl.gov/resources/fuelcells/

Fues Cells coming of age
http://www.fuelcellstore.com/information/coming_of_age.html

Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars: ecoworld article
http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=284

NASA Spaces on Energy Solutuion: Wired article
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,63913,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1

DEVELOPING IMPROVED MATERIALS TO SUPPORT THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY
http://www.hydrogenus.com/EMTEC-EFC-RFP01A.pdf

International Association For Hydrogen Energy
http://www.iahe.org/

Sustained Photobiological Hydrogen Gas Production upon Reversible Inactivation of Oxygen Evolution in the Green Alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/1/127

Hydrogen; Quick Facts
http://www.hydrogenus.com/hydrogen-basics.asp

Europositron technology: a private enterprise
http://www.europositron.com/en/background.html

Brayton Cycle engines
http://www.almturbine.com/

Hybrid Turbine Electric Vehicle
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT1996/6000/6920v.htm
http://search.grc.nasa.gov/query.html?qt=turbine+electric&col=grcint&qc=&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rq=0&rf=0&tx=0&go=Search

UK company way ahead of the market in creating green hydrogen
http://search.grc.nasa.gov/query.html?qt=turbine+electric&col=grcint&qc=&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rq=0&rf=0&tx=0&go=Search

Hydrogen Economy looks out of reach: Nature article
UK company way ahead of the market in creating green hydrogen

Running On Thin Air
Iceland is making its dream of a hydrogen economy come true
http://www.time.com/time/europe/specials/ff/trip1/hydrogen.html

California Unveils State's First Hydrogen Refueling Station: News item
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200410/200410230010.html

Fusion reactor decision must wait: BBC report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3997249.stm

Hybrids vs. Hydrogen: Which Future Is Brighter?
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Hybrid/story?id=266883&page=1

hydrogen from methanol
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Jun02/NPO19948.html

hydrogen from coal
http://www.nuclear.com/Energy_policy/Coal_gas_news.html

hydrogen from nuclear power
http://www.businessreport.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=291054

hydrogen from sunlight
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/09/14/6900043_Solar_Hydrogen/index.html

hydrogent from wind
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=502

fuel cells
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-03s.html

Technical issues of a hydrogen economy
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/1.html#pagetop

[url]hydrogen from methanol
http://www.nasatech.com/Briefs/Jun02/NPO19948.html

hydrogen from coal
http://www.nuclear.com/Energy_policy/Coal_gas_news.html

hydrogen from nuclear power
http://www.businessreport.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=561&fArticleId=291054

hydrogen from sunlight
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2004/09/14/6900043_Solar_Hydrogen/index.html

hydrogent from wind
http://evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=502

fuel cells
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-03s.html

Technical issues of a hydrogen economy
http://books.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/1.html#pagetop

Scientists develop new hydrogen reactor: CNN news item
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02/13/hydrogen.reactors.ap/

Ethanol and the Environment
http://www.ethanolrfa.org/factfic_envir.html
http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=21
http://www.ethanol-gec.org/corn_eth.htm#net
http://www.ncga.com/news/notd/2004/june/060904a.htm


A group of non-specific links from various poster:
http://www.iogen.ca
http://www.sheclabs.com
http://www.ecologen.com/page_TSSOM2-75.html
http://www.lanl.gov/worldview/news/releases/archive/04-076.shtml
http://www.azonano.com/details.asp?articleID=1022
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1291187/posts
http://www.forrelease.com/D20040519...3352.28636.html
http://groundstate.ca/node/68

Food, Energy, and Society [book]
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0870813862/102-1402138-4812900

Hydrogen economy for a sustainable development:state-of-the-art and technological perspectives
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0870813862/102-1402138-4812900

The Hydrogen Economy: Physics Today article
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/p39.html
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-12/PDF/vol57no12p39-45.pdf

The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers, and R&D Needs (2004)
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091632/html/

Hydrogen Economy Offers Major Opportunities But Faces Considerable Hurdles
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309091632?OpenDocument

Supercritical-Water-Cooled Reactor
http://energy.inel.gov/gen-iv/scwr.shtml

Clean coal compendium and related articles:
http://www.netl.doe.gov/cctc
http://www.careenergy.com/news/articleview.asp?iArticle=7
http://www.antenna.nl/wise/uranium/mdaf.html

Automobile Emissions Reduction Efforts in the U.S. - Chronology
http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/auto-emissions_chronol.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html

Articles posted from Car and Driver
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=2502&page_number=1
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3418&page_number=1
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3418&page_number=1
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=3296&page_number=1
http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=4343&page_number=1

The Dirty Folly of "Clean Coal"
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/clean_coal.html

Coal Combustion, Public Health and the Environment
http://www.ems.org/energy_policy/coal.html

Emissions of greenhouse gases
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg98rpt/emission.html

More on nuclear options for Hydrogen
http://nuclear.gov/home/11-09-04.html
https://www.pbmr.com/
http://gt-mhr.ga.com/
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nucenviss2.html
https://www.pbmr.com/3_pbmr_technical_info/pbmr_technical_contents.htm#PBMRFuel

Spray-On Solar-Power Cells Are True Breakthrough
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0114_050114_solarplastic.html

ASU researcher gets grant to explore new methods of hydrogen generation
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-01/asu-arg012005.php

Quantum Dots and Tunable Bandgap
http://www.evidenttech.com/applications/quantum-dot-solar-cells.php
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=quantum+dots+Infrared+solar+cells

Hydrogen for residential combined heat and power
http://www.waterstof.org/20030725EHECO3-132.pdf

Oregon may lead future of wave energy: news alert
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/osu-oml020105.php

"Ethanol has the potential to be an integral part of the emerging hydrogen economy. Its properties make it an excellent liquid fuel for the extraction of hydrogen.
http://www.maui-tomorrow.org/issuespages/energy/ethanol_hydrogen.html

Hydrogen powered motorcycle: news item
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1321345.html?menu=

T-Zero Electric Car [hot!]
http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_home.htm

Windmills in the Sky: Wired News item
http://www.wired.com/news/planet/0,2782,67121,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2

Solar Tower of Power: Wired News item
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66694,00.html

About H2 ICE: Internal Combustion Engines. They're here...
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=70653

H2 CARSBIZ
http://www.h2cars.biz/artman/publish/index.shtml

[russ_watters]

Why do you call it a scam? I agree that it could be, but this could just be a matter of pioneers blazing trails. Do you have some specific information about this company or the people involved? My definition of a "scam" may be a little tighter than most, but I call a company with 3 employees (iirc), no engineering expertise to be designing the most ambitious construction project yet conceived, no possible funding source, and thus no hope of ever building it, a scam.

That these guys may be honest but clueless is possible, but that doesn't make it any less of a scam for people who fell for it and gave them money.

We've discussed this before and I went through the company's website (which contained a lot of company, as it is required by law) - I'll look for the thread...

[Ivan Seeking]

My definition of a "scam" may be a little tighter than most, but I call a company with 3 employees (iirc), no engineering expertise to be designing the most ambitious construction project yet conceived, no possible funding source, and thus no hope of ever building it, a scam.

We've discussed this before and I went through the company's website (which contained a lot of company, as it is required by law) - I'll look for the thread...

The Company
EnviroMission Limited listed on the Australian Stock Exchange in August 2001 to develop highly innovative Solar Tower electricity generation projects for the Australian renewable energy market.

EnviroMission owns the exclusive Australian licence to Solar Tower technology and is moving to commercialise the first of five planned Solar Tower power stations in Australia by 2008. A single power station development will have the capacity to supply renewable energy to more than one 200,000 households.

The company anticipates its unique technology will capture the nation’s attention and place EnviroMission at the forefront of renewable energy generation in Australia.

Our competitive advantage will be based on innovative world-class engineering solutions to deliver substantial environmental benefits from large-scale, grid connected renewable energy technology.

A dedicated team of executives and an Advisory Panel of eminent industry professionals support the EnviroMission’s experienced board of directors in the drive to position the company as a leader in renewable energy development.

Board of Directors

Roger Chalmers Davey, B.Bus, CPA, CFTP
Executive Chairman (also Chief Executive Officer)


Mr Davey was the driving force behind the acquisition of the licence to Solar Tower technology and the formation of EnviroMission as the vehicle to develop the technology in Australia first. He has served on the board of directors since 2001, in the first instance as Executive Director until his appointment as Executive Chairman in June 2004. He has held the position of Chief Financial Officer prior to his appointment as Chief Executive Officer in November 2001.



Mr. Davey is also Executive Chairman of SolarMission Technologies, Inc (formerly Energen Global, Inc) based in the United States. SolarMission Technologies, Inc is the global licence holder of Solar Tower technology and is a long-term investor and major shareholder in EnviroMission Limited.



Mr. Davey brings knowledge and experience in; commodity and financial risk management; exchange and regulatory market matters; and, equity and capital finance issues, to EnviroMission’s company and board objectives, and is a cornerstone of the ongoing relationship between the global licence holder, SolarMission Technologies, Inc, and EnviroMission Limited

Mr. Davey holds qualifications of Bachelor of Business (Economics/Accounting), Member of Certified Practicing Accountants (CPA), Member of the Securities Institute of Australia (ASIA), and Member of the Finance and Treasury Association Limited (CFTP).

Martin Hallowell Thomas AM, FTSE, HonFIEAust, FAIE
Non-Executive Director

Mr. Thomas has served on the EnviroMission board since 2001 as a non-executive director and non-executive Chairman before resigning and continuing in his role as non-executive director.

As a former Principal of Sinclair Knight Merz, Mr. Thomas has over 30 years experience as a consulting engineer in the power and energy sector. He was the founding Managing Director of the Australian Co-operative Research Centre for Renewable Energy (ACRE) and Greenhouse Gas Abatement Technologies. He was Chairman of the Electricity Council of New South Wales for six years. Mr Thomas has been responsible for numerous power generation and energy management projects in Australia and overseas.

Mr Thomas has played and continues to play a leading role in many engineering and energy organisations. He is the immediate past President of the Australian Institute of Energy, a past President of The Institution of Engineers Australia, a past Vice-President of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering and past Chairman of the National Engineering Registration Board.

Previous Board appointments include Deputy Chairman of Australian Inland Energy and Water and Non Executive Director of the Tyree Group of Companies.

Stephen Graves, MBA Finance, BA Econ.
Non-Executive Director

Advisory Panel

An advisory panel of individuals eminent in their respective fields has been assembled to provide EnviroMission’s board of directors with constructive opinion, rigorous scrutiny and facilitation with high-level government, science, legal, commercial and industry consultations.

Panel member expertise includes:

Renewable energy generation
Energy industry issues and needs
Science, research and development
Civil engineering and construction
Major project development
Large-scale construction and manufacturing
Environmental and ecological issues
Community consultation
Regional infrastructure and economic impacts
Legal and commercial
Members of the Advisory Panel:

Martin Thomas AM - Chairman
The Hon. Peter Rae AO
Professor Ian Lowe AO
Dr. John Nutt AM
David Gallbally QC
Frank Spencer
Richard Farley
Advisory Panel Members’ Details

Martin Hallowell Thomas AM, FTSE, HonFIEAust, FAIE

Advisory Panel Chairman

Mr Thomas is also a non-executive director and former Chairman of EnviroMission. He is currently a director of Australian Inland Energy & Water and a director of the Tyree Group of Companies.

As a former Principal of Sinclair Knight Merz, Mr. Thomas has over 30 years experience as a consulting engineer in the power and energy sector. He was the founding managing director of the Australian Co-operative Research Centre for Renewable Energy (ACRE) and Greenhouse Gas Abatement Technologies. He was Chairman of the Electricity Council of New South Wales for six years. Mr Thomas has been responsible for numerous power generation and energy management projects in Australia and overseas.

Mr Thomas continues to play a leading role in many engineering and energy organisations. He is currently national president of the Australian Institute of Energy and is a past president of The Institution of Engineers Australia and a past vice-president of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.

David Norman Galbally, QC

Mr Galbally is a leading Australian Queens Council practising out of Melbourne and specialising in criminal law, corporate compliance, commercial and trade practices, email and internet, white collar crime including breaches of Corporations Law, defrauding the Commonwealth/breaches of the Income Tax Act, and false and misleading prospectus prosecution.

He has appeared in all jurisdiction from Magistrates’ Court through to the High Court of Australia.

Mr Galbally serves on many boards of community and charitable organisations and is a partner of Melbourne based Browne and Co since July 2000.

The Hon. Peter Rae AO, BA LLB (Hons), FAICD, AIDM
Mr. Rae is a lawyer and the Director of Rae & Partners as is also the current Chairman of Hydro Tasmania since 1993. He is Chairman and Director to a number of other companies as well as Chairman of the Renewable Energy Generation Association.

Mr. Rae was the MHA (Lib) for the seat of Bass in Tasmania (1986-89) and has been a member of Federal Parliament for 18 years. He was a Minister for Education and The Arts, Industrial Relations, Deregulation, Technology and Youth Affairs. He has also been held Shadow Ministry portfolios for Industry and Commerce, Finance, Educations and Science.

He has chaired a variety of Senate Select Committees and is the author of many papers and chapters of books on constitutional administration and parliamentary law.

John Nutt AM BE, PhD, Hon DSc, HonFIEAust, FTSE, FIStructE, MICE
Dr John Nutt is an Australian engineer who led the international firm Ove Arup and Partners. He helped found the Australian practice of Ove Arup and Partners, now one of the leading firms of consulting engineers in the Asia - Pacific region, and was its Chairman for 25 years. He was also Chairman of The Arup Partnerships, London for four years.

Arup Australasia have been responsible for many of the tallest buildings in Australia, for many of the structures of the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, and many significant buildings in Asia including the stadium at the 1998 Asian Games in Bangkok.

He helped pioneer the use of computers in engineering practice commencing with the design and analysis of the Sydney Opera House roof. Dr. Nutt oversaw the preparation of the Australian Standards for loads, load combinations, and wind forces on buildings and structures.

Prof. Ian Lowe AO, BSc., DPhil
Professor Lowe is a prominent commentator on public policy issues, with a special interest in sustainable energy. Named Australian Humanist of the Year in 1988, Dr Lowe has been a key advisor for many government bodies and non-government groups. He has acted as Director of the Australian Government’s Commission for the Future and he chaired the Advisory Council that produced Australia’s first national report on the state of the environment.

Dr Lowe has been acknowledged for his contribution to the understanding of science, technology and the environment by being named a Queensland Living Legend at the Premier’s Millennium Awards for Excellence. With more than 400 publications to his name, Dr Lowe is one of Australia’s most highly respected and sought after public speakers.

Richard Farley BA
Mr. Farley is the Managing Director of the Farley Consulting Group (FCG) specialising in the development of agreements at a community level, particularly in relation to native title issues.

Mr. Farley is currently the co-chair of the NSW State Reconciliation Committee and an Ambassador for Reconciliation. Mr Farley was appointed to chair the NSW Government Resource and Conservation Assessment Council at the beginning of 2000 and has chaired the Lake Victoria Advisory Council for the Murray Darling Basin Commission since 1997. He was also former Executive Director of the National Farmers’ Federation.

Mr. Farley has wide experience in finding common ground on issues and in negotiations from community to international level. During his career, Mr. Farley has exercised responsibility for the direction of national organisations and developed their business and financial plans.

Executive Management Team

EnviroMission’s executive management team is comprised of people who hold significant senior level experience and expertise with both government and private electricity enterprises within Australia’s energy market.

Roger Chalmers Davey, B.Bus, CPA, CFTP
Chief Executive Officer (Executive Chairman)

Mr. Davey has extensive knowledge of, and experience in; commodity and financial risk management; exchange and regulatory market matters; and, equity and capital finance issues and has been Chief Executive Officer since November 2004.

Ian David Riley, Dip Com; CA
Company Secretary

Mr. Riley's extensive background as a Chartered Accountant and principal of several accounting practices has provided him with broad experience of corporate fiduciary responsibilities, including initial public offerings, capital raisings, financial due diligence and audits of listed public companies.

Kim Forté, B Soc Sc

Communications Manager

Ms Forte has a background in socio-environmental science and worked extensively in corporate communications across diverse industry sectors, specifically involving public relations, government relations and investor relations. She also has experience in marketing, branding and research design and application.

Ms Forte is Vice-President of one of Australia’s leading environmental education organisations, Gould Group and has served on its board since 1996






Mr. Graves has served on the EnviroMission board as a non-executive director since 2001 and has also served the EnviroMission as Chief Executive Officer prior to his departure to the United States in November 2001.

He was a former Treasurer of Mobil Oil Australia and New Zealand, and President of the multi-billion dollar finance arm of the company. He was responsible for funding Mobil Corporation’s capital requirements in the Pacific Region.

Previously a senior consultant to Ernst & Young, Stephen provided expert advice on corporate finance, tax and financial systems. From 1998 to 2000 he provided senior financial advice to a Queensland government owned electricity retailer with an annual turnover of A$1 Billion.

Mr. Graves is also a consultant to SolarMission Technologies, Inc, in the United States.

Mr. Graves obtained his MBA in Finance at UCLA and a Bachelor of Arts (Cum Laude) in Economics at the University of Washington. He has been a member of the Finance & Treasury Association (CFTP).

Geoffrey Max Parkinson
Non-Executive Director

Mr. Parkinson has served on the EnviroMission board since 2001 as a non-executive director and former company secretary of Prudential West Ltd who merged with EnviroMission in 2001 to form EnviroMission Limited to list on the ASX in the same year.

Mr. Parkinson has over 30 years experience in the banking and finance sector in key executive director and management roles. He has contributed extensively to the development of the sector through his widely adopted training and development programmes.

Mr. Parkinson is founder and director of West Australian based Mortgage Originator entity FinanceCorp North Pty. Ltd.

Guoxiang Ma
Non-Executive Director

Mr Ma joined the EnviroMission board on the 8 June 2004, and resides in Shanghai in the Peoples Republic of China.

Mr Ma is the founding Chairman of Shanghai Xiang Jiang Industrial Co. Ltd., since 1994.

Shanghai Jiang Industrial Co. Ltd. has been involved in property development and the building sector since inception.

Mr Ma is also Chairman of Sunshine Energy (Aust.) Pty. Ltd., an investor in EnviroMission since November 2003 with the purpose of advancing EnviroMission’s commercial prospects in Australia and forming an important link in the development of Solar Tower power stations in China.

Yue Tang
Alternate Non-Executive Director for Mr. Guoxiang Ma (since 8 June, 2004)

Mr Tang is director and Secretary of Sunshine Energy (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. and Director of Shanghai Xiang Jiang Industrial Co. Ltd. Mr Tang is an engineer with experience in semiconductor research associated with solar power generation. Mr Tang is alternate non-executive director for Mr Ma who resides in China.
http://www.enviromission.com.au/

Okay, I believe you. It's a scam.

[russ_watters]

Ivan, only four of those guys (ok, so I thought it was 3...) are in the company. The "advisory panel" is just a bunch of names they assembled to make it look like they have experts working for them (and yeah, you fell for it). Go through their financials.

[Ivan Seeking]

And no engineers to boot...

Give me a break. You have absolutely no idea what relation or agreements these people may have. Obviously they are allowed to use the names of those listed. That alone constitutes a professional relationship. You're just guessing and taking pot shots as usual.

[russ_watters]

HERE (http://www.enviromission.com.au/) is the website. They still have the Time article "Best inventions of 2002" up as the centerpiece of the site. It still says: Within five years EnviroMission aims to be one of Australia’s leading producers of clean, green renewable energy. I can only assume that's from August of 2002, when they were awarded "'State Significant Development' status".

So they're halfway there... how are they doing so far...?

-They still do not employ any engineers.
-They still do not have a meaningful amount of funding.

I think I said it before (dang, why can't I find that...) MY company, with 2 engineers, 4 AutoCAD drafters is in a better position to do the project than they are.

More later, gotta go....

[russ_watters]

Give me a break. You have absolutely no idea what relation or agreements these people may have. Obviously they are allowed to use the names of those listed. That alone constitutes a professional relationship. You're just guessing and taking pot shots as usual. Ivan, yes, I do know. One of the nice things about being a publicly traded company is that they are required by law to post an annual report. Its all there. I have to go, but I'll pull specifics for you this afternoon.

[Ivan Seeking]

At a glance this appears to be a perfectly normal way to approach such a massive effort. Just as many of my customers do, they are probably contracting out the work as its needed. You don't hire 500 people for a project that isn't even funded yet. This is a financial effort at this stage.

[Ivan Seeking]

Main Entry: scam
Pronunciation: 'skam
Function: noun
Etymology: origin unknown
: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation <an insurance scam>

[Ivan Seeking]

HOUSTON -- Your car's engine loses 70 percent of its energy as waste heat -- but Australian and Oregon scientists may have figured out an efficient way not only to recover that lost energy, but to at long last capture the power-producing potential of geothermal heat.

The trick is to convert it to electricity -- and a promising way to accomplish this, the researchers have discovered, involves using extremely thin nanowires to potentially more than double the efficiency of thermoelectric materials.

"If all goes well, nanostructured thermoelectric devices may be practical for applications such as recycling of waste heat in car engines, on-chip cooling of computer microprocessors and silent, more compact domestic refrigerators," says Heiner Linke, a University of Oregon assistant professor of physics associated with ONAMI, the Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechnologies Institute. [continued]
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-04/uoo-sdb040505.php

[hitssquad]

Scientists discover better way to generate power from thermal sourcesWhat they might have discovered is an improvement upon the efficiency of thermoelectric materials. All they are talking about in regards to the use of these materials with car engines is creating some electrical power by placing the thermoelectric generators on the vehicle's exhaust pipes. Scientists have been experimenting with thermoelectric devices on exhaust pipes for years:
http://www.hi-z.com/websit07.htm

[Ivan Seeking]

From the link:
researchers have discovered, involves using extremely thin nanowires to potentially more than double the efficiency of thermoelectric materials.

[Ivan Seeking]

-They still do not employ any engineers.
-They still do not have a meaningful amount of funding.


It is all about the money and they are trying to sell the idea. This does not make it scam. It only means that like most projects, expectations exceed the reality of things. Obviously this is a hard sell. Like I said, you would have them hire people for an unfunded project. It doesn't work that real in the real world for projects of this size and risk.

All that you can say is that they have not met their goals.

[Cliff_J]

Are you thinking of the guy who wanted to pump fuel into space on a carbon nanotube tether/pipe?

No, as others have said, the solar tower idea just uses solare heating of the desert and would work - in theory. But that "in theory" part is a real kicker: The worlds tallest freestanding structure is about 500m high. They want to build a 1000m tower. Doesn't seem too realistic to me from an engineering standpoint.


No I recall a discussion on here a long time back where the idea of some giant solar tower was proposed but rather than just use the heated air it also employed some use of water misting like a cooling tower. Some sort of method to increase the temperature differential to boost efficiency. Links to quite a few websites were provided, then the debunking started.

First the feasibility of such a tall and wide structure were addressed. I like watching the show "Extreme Engineering" and their ideas are wild enough, but those ideas are dwarfed by some structure nearly 20 miles across and over a half mile in height.

Second, the water was suppossed to be taken up to 2/3 the height to be deployed. The calcs for a column of water that high, the pumps needed and pumping losses, even just the pipe needed to contain that pressure were pushing available technologies. (makes sense with this about 2x as tall as the tallest buildings) Someone had done the numbers and showed the pumping requiring more MW than the design was suppossed to produce in total.

Third was the return on investment and cost to build. And now the extra question of would this structure be designed to handle terroristic acts too since its a symbol of captialism.

I dunno, I'd like to see a scale model working first with repeatability.

[Seafang]

The point that you seem to keep missing is that there are about a hundred links in this thread and linked threads that answer your questions. Many renewable energy sources are promising, or even succeeding in some markets. I'm not about to list them all again. If you read, you will see that they are already discussed in this thread, and the original archived thread, linked on page one. The real point here is to track the progress of various approaches and to see which are most practical. Also, as suggested by Chronos, even nuclear power may be a part of the solution.


Well I am not missing anything; I have already read all the things you have alluded to; to the point where this whole thread has become exceedingly tiresome. Everybody seems to be trying to justify his or her particular pet form of "alternative" energy.
I'm in favor of ANY form of alternative energy sources.

What I am not in favor of is using scarce and expensive existing sources of energy that we desperately need to use for enterprise merely to repaint the gas tank a different color; because that is all that you are doing when you take existing fossil fuels and raw materials like water or hydrocarbons to extract at very high energy cost, the atoms of hydrogen you want to put in your newly repainted gas tank. It is simply a wheel spinning operation, and makes available NO new energy over and above what we still have left from available sources.

Exploit new sources of energy Yes I cheer for that. Waste existing sources of energy merely repackaging already scarce energy NO !! a thousand times NO!!.

[Ivan Seeking]

The question is: How many nuclear power plants would be required to completely replace fossil fuels via H2 production for the US transportation sector?

I was shooting from the hip a bit but this should be a reasonable approximation. I'm sure that you will state any objections to the method used. :biggrin:

I used the following information. In the May 2004 edition of Scientific American,
http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?sequencenameCHAR=item2&methodnameCHAR=resource_getitembrowse&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=CB826BAE-2B35-221B-6E2587F29CF2C88A&ARTICLEID_CHAR=CB9BE5E6-2B35-221B-6F2461DEF9B52B9C&sc=I100322
The current “well to wheels efficiency” [WWE] of various fuels and applications are listed. For Crude oil used in internal combustion engines, the WWE is about 12%. For simplicity, I assume this as typical of all internal combustion engines.

Next, the total demand for crude was located here http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill/charts/chart8.pdf
and is estimated to be about 13 million barrels per day for the entire US transportation sector.

Next, from the Energy Information Administration; International Energy Annual 2002, it appears the most crude comes with a total heat content of 5800 thousand BTUs per barrel. After converting [1055.056 Joules/BTU] etc, and after factoring in the 12% efficiency and the number of barrels per day demand, etc., I come up with a total of about 1.1 X 1011 watts as the effective power demand.

If we consider water to H2 via electrolysis applied to hydrogen fuel cell powered electric cars, we expect a total well to wheel efficiency of about 8%. So we need 1.4 X 1012 watts; or about 1100 nuclear power plants. This assumes 1200MW as the typical size of each nuclear plant.

If we use methane reformed to hydrogen via nuclear it gets more complicated. But it appears that the cracking process is the majority of the fuel chain energy loss, so a straight forward WWE is at least in the ball park. With this, it appears that by converting methane to H2, and again running a H2 fuel cell powered car, we would need about 420 nuclear power plants.

If these were applied to hydrogen internal combustion engines, considering only the efficiency of autos and using that as a worst case, we would need about 1.7 times as many nuclear plants in either case; or 1900, and 710 plants, respectively.

The initial calculations ignore aircraft and machines that cannot be converted to run on electric power. So the real number should lie somewhere between 1100 - 1900 for water to hydrogen, or 420 - 710 nuclear power plants in the case of reformed methane.

edit: error corrected

[willib]

Why would the amount of carbon in a gas give higher BTU value ??
http://www.naturalgas.com/consumer/measuring.html
bottom of page..

[Ivan Seeking]

More carbon means more bonds to break and form, hence more energy out. Ideally, all of the carbon atoms would bind as CO2, which is what makes this all a net positive - exothermic - reaction. So as a rule of thumb, more carbon means more energy out per molecule.

[willib]

Oh ..Thanks Ivan..
i was doing some research today on the amount of natural gas we (our association) could save if we lowered the temp of our hot water heaters by one degree C..any way i came across a site that gave the specific heat of hydrogen to be something like 14,000 where the specific heat of water is 4.18 . it looked like hydrogen would make an excellent heat transfer mechinism..??
btw we could save 1090.9 CF of gas a month ,for a 500 gal hot water heater, if we lowered the temp by one degree C ..
I used a low number of the water heater comming on just five times a day..
( in reality it probably rarely goes off)

[willib]

and what about combined cycle gas turbines (CCGT )
http://www.energy.qld.gov.au/infosite/ex_comb_cycle_gt.html
do you mean to tell me that this whole time ,nuclear power plants have been wasting all that heat that goes into the cooling towers????
ps..
that is a general you , it is not geared twards anyone in particular..

[willib]

Ivan , is there any way to make methane ,from hydrogen? exothermic or endothermic?
maybe under high pressure , H2 will combine with carbon in nano tubes to give CH4 ??

[Ivan Seeking]

Why would you want to go the other direction? The whole point is to take the carbon out of the fuel chain.

It would take energy to break up the CO2 and H2O, and you would get less energy back when you allow the free carbon atoms to bind with free hydrogen, and the free oxygen to form O2. So the reaction would be endothermic going the other direction. Also, the reaction in that direction is not spontaneous so it would be more complicated than that.

[hitssquad]

The whole point is to take the carbon out of the fuel chain.What might be the purpose of taking carbon out of the fuel chain?

[willib]

WHY.??.because you said More carbon means more bonds to break and form, hence more energy out
So i figured if one could use a more energy potent gas , then this whole thing might work..
thats all

[Ivan Seeking]

What might be the purpose of taking carbon out of the fuel chain?

Well that's a loaded question if I've ever heard one. Okay you tell me, why don't we want to remove carbon from the fuel chain?

Of course the answer to your question is global warming.

[Ivan Seeking]

Ah, I'll bet that you're thinking of the net zero carbon fuels - some of the biodiesel and ethanol options.

[willib]

Well that's a loaded question if I've ever heard one. Okay you tell me, why don't we want to remove carbon from the fuel chain?

Of course the answer to your question is global warming.
Global warming ?..!! There have been many times in the past where the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has far exceeded the present..of course it is usually followed by a drastic drop in global temp. ice age ..
its just natures way of cleaning house i suppose..
my humble opinion..

[hitssquad]

why don't we want to remove carbon from the fuel chain?Carbon makes a convenient carrier for hydrogen; infrastructure is set up for liquid hydrocarbon fuels; and liquid hydrocarbon fueled engines satisfy relatively high machine performance standards.



Of course the answer to your question is global warming.The answer is not noxious and smog-forming pollution?

[Ivan Seeking]

There are many reasons to remove carbon from the fuel chain. Yes, pollution is one reason, but greenhouse gas emissions are the primary concern.

If scientists magically declared an end to our global warming concerns, I would jump off of the hydrogen-only bandwagon in about five seconds.

[hitssquad]

pollution is one reason, but greenhouse gas emissions are the primary concern.Sometimes greenhouse gas emissions are referred to as "pollution."
http://www.google.com/search?q=greenhouse+gas+pollution

Do you know what equivocation (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/equiv.php) is?



If scientists magically declared an end to our global warming concerns, I would jump off of the hydrogen-only bandwagon in about five seconds.Perhaps global warming and its causes and social impacts should be addressed in another thread in another section of Physics Forums such as Earth and/or Social Sciences.

[Ivan Seeking]

Sometimes greenhouse gas emissions are referred to as "pollution."
http://www.google.com/search?q=greenhouse+gas+pollution

Do you know what equivocation (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/equiv.php) is?

What is your point? You used the words noxious and smog-forming pollution, neither of which apply to CO2 within the context of global warming.


Perhaps global warming and its causes and social impacts should be addressed in another thread in another section of Physics Forums such as Earth and/or Social Sciences.

The source article for this thread discusses greenhouse gases in fair detail. So it is completely on topic as far as technology options and motivations are concerned.

[hitssquad]

What is your point?Pollution can mean -- and often is used to mean -- various different things. When a speaker specifies what he is referring to by his use of an equivocal term such as pollution, there is less confusion. Use of equivocal terms without differentiation is equivocation (http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/equiv.php) and is confusing. Lack of confusion is important for scientific communication. Arthur Jensen reports that elite scientists tend to be earnest about minimizing confusion in communication.



You used the words noxious and smog-forming pollutionThat differentiates quite well from other forms of pollution, yes?.



neither of which apply to CO2 within the context of global warming.Yes. That is very clear, isn't it?

[Ivan Seeking]

I made my meaning clear when I said greenhouse gases and CO2. If you have a point please make it.

[Ivan Seeking]

BMW Writes Automobile History and underlines Technological Leadership.

Hydrogen means top performance not only in rockets travelling to outer space:

...Indeed, the specifications of the H2R Record Car clearly confirm this superiority, the six-litre 12 cylinder power unit developing an output of more than 210 kW or 285 bhp. This accelerates the BMW prototype to 100 km/h in approximately 6 seconds and gives it a top speed of 302,4 km/h (185,52 mph). Based on the gasoline power unit featured in the BMW 760i, BMW's hydrogen combustion engine boasts the most advanced technologies such as BMW's fully variable VALVETRONIC valve drive. [continued]
http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/NewsID/2040920.001/bmw/1.html

Edit: Note that this car can run on gasoline or liquid hydrogen with the flick of a switch. Also, according to one interview on Discoveries This Week, over the next few years, BMW expects there to be enough H2 fueling stations built in Germany to justify production of H2 powered cars. I don't know who's buying the hydrgoen now or what motivate the installation of these stations, but it sounds like Germany is hot on H2.

[willib]

The most significant differences in terms of the engine's structural components are the hydrogen injection valve and the choice of materials for the combustion chambers: Contrary to the production engine with fuel injected directly into the combustion chambers themselves, the injection valves in the hydrogen engine are integrated in the intake manifolds. And for the specific speed record requirements to be fulfilled in this case, the hydrogen combustion engine was designed and built for single-mode operation running exclusively on hydrogen.
the test car can not switch between gasoline & hydrogen :bugeye:

[Ivan Seeking]

...Designed to create energy without combustion, the 1 MW power plant consists of four 250-kilowatt Direct FuelCell(R) (DFC(R)) power plants from FuelCell Energy, Inc. (NasdaqNM:FCEL). Its waste heat will be harvested in the form of steam and used for the brewing process as well as other heating needs. One MW of electricity (equivalent to the power needed to support approximately 500-1000 homes for a year) will supply essentially 100 percent of the brewery's base load power requirements. With this power plant, Sierra Nevada not only lowers its overall energy costs but also eliminates air pollutant emissions equivalent to removing 500 gasoline-powered cars from the road every year. When the fuel cells generate more power than the brewery requires, Sierra Nevada sends excess electricity back to the grid system and receives credit for a portion of its generation costs. [continued]
http://www.rednova.com/news/science/190024/sierra_nevada_brews_up_environmentally_friendly_fu el_cell_electricity_gov/
and
http://www.alliancepower.com/sierra.html

[Kenneth Mann]

This (http://www.safehydrogen.com/PDFs/28890o.pdf) looks like a promising approach to hydrogen delivery. It still has development issues but they look solvable. What do you think?

KM

[Ivan Seeking]

AS THE PRICE OF A BARREL OF OIL continues to surge and oil traders eye possible disruptions in production from hurricane Katrina, scientists are turning to the ocean as a possible source of alternative energy.

Many forms of renewable energy have been contemplated, and of course solar and wind power plants are already in use. But so far, only a small fraction of the world's energy production comes from renewable resources.

President George W. Bush has talked of a hydrogen economy, in which abundant energy would be extracted from water and the tailpipes of cars would be clean. But extracting hydrogen from water requires energy -- fossil fuels or nuclear power, for example. Many scientists say technology will never allow the extraction of a enough hydrogen to make up for the energy needed to do the extracting. ]continued]
http://www.livescience.com/technology/ap_050826_wave_energy.html

[hitssquad]

http://www.livescience.com/technology/ap_050826_wave_energy.html"There's a real good chance that Oregon could turn into kind of the focal point in the United States for wave energy development and I think that would be a boon to the economy,'' said Gary Cockrum, spokesman for the Central Lincoln People's Utility District."

Everyone wants a research grant, Ivan.

[Ivan Seeking]

Thanks for the great insight. :rolleyes:

[Ivan Seeking]

If you can't bear to be away from your laptop during that camping trip to deepest Borneo, help may soon be at hand. Lightweight generators powered by methanol are now on the market... for the rich, at least.

The device, designed to specifications for the US Army by the California company UltraCell, weighs just 1.3 kilograms when fuelled up and is the size of a novel. With a supply of 500 millilitres of methanol, the cell can chuck out 45 watts for a day, which is enough to power a laptop.

The cell and fuel together are half the weight of the lithium batteries needed to provide the same power.

Unlike traditional generators, fuel cells are totally quiet. And unlike batteries, they can be 'recharged' without being plugged into the wall. [continued]
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050822/full/050822-8.html

[russ_watters]

http://www.livescience.com/technology/ap_050826_wave_energy.html No offense Ivan, but when I see statements like these: ...in which abundant energy would be extracted from water... [uh, energy is not extracted from water]andMany scientists say technology will never allow the extraction of a enough hydrogen to make up for the energy needed to do the extracting. ...I cringe. Its articles like that, where the writer misunderstands the 1st law of thermodynamics (and pretty much everything else about the subject she's writing about), that make people have unrealistic expectations of what hydrogen can do. Much of the rest of the article is a bunch of second-hand soundbytes of similar uselessness. Ie: "[b]I read something involved with this that said if 0.2 percent of the ocean's energy were harnessed, it could produce enough energy to power the entire world,'' added Cockrum, the utility district spokesman. [emphasis added] "I read something..."? A reporter actually put that quote into an article? Jeez, did she take journalism 101? Terrible, terrible article.

The biggest difficulty facing us in the so-called energy crisis is bad information coming from government and the media, making people think wrong things about our energy situation. Ie, the nuclear power decline caused by misinformation following TMI.

[russ_watters]

...where the writer misunderstands the 1st law of thermodynamics (and pretty much everything else about the subject she's writing about)... Holy crap, the writer is an electrical engineer?!?! What the...?

[Ivan Seeking]

No offense Ivan, but when I see statements like these: and ...I cringe.

What exactly is your objection? If the energy is not in the water ala wave energy then where is it? And you seem to be objecting to the notion that we need need energy to "extract" hydrogen. I mean, I don't have any vested interest in livescience, but the meaning seemed pretty clear to me. Maybe you misunderstood.

[Ivan Seeking]

Okay, I think you are reading this wrong. You were thinking the article is about extracting H2 from water for energy?

[LURCH]

Actually, I think he's reading it right, if he's talking about this segment:

President George W. Bush has talked of a hydrogen economy, in which abundant energy would be extracted from water and the tailpipes of cars would be clean. But extracting hydrogen from water requires energy -- fossil fuels or nuclear power, for example.

which is definitely talking about extracting hydrogen from water. And the other statement,

Many scientists say technology will never allow the extraction of a enough hydrogen to make up for the energy needed to do the extracting.

seems a bit silly to me,as well. "Many scientists say"? No, the law of entropy, arguably the most verified and inescapable truth of the physical universe, says. This isn't a question of "...technology will never allow...", but the physical laws of reality will never allow.

I am somewhat hopefull that the new breakthrough in carbon nanotubes will at least partially solve some of the most outsanding storage problems.

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, according to the article in the OP, it's not so clear cut since the complete well-to-wheels efficiency of the system has to be considered. For example, it is more efficient to crack the hydrogen in methane and run that H2 in a Hydrogen fuel cell, than it is to run methane directly in methane fuel cells.

In either case, this article is about using ocean wave energy and the continued talk of the Oregon coast being a great focal point for this effort. The logical connection to H2 is that wave motion energy probably lends itself well to producing [cracking] H2. If I were an engineer wanting to work in this industry, I would sure want to know about the work in Oregon.

Not to mention that I am, I do, I'm here, so I hope to. :biggrin:

[Ivan Seeking]

btw, I have worked with Prof von Jouanne, and not only is she is a class act [having helped me to get my business going in the very early days], she is also very, very smart. She did a lot of work that help to solve the problem with VFD induced motor failures, and she allowed me to use some of her work [equations] to solve some problems that I had with a related technology. But in any event, I would chalk up any misstatements to LiveScience; or perhaps nerves.

[willib]

President George W. Bush has talked of a hydrogen economy, in which abundant energy would be extracted from water and the tailpipes of cars would be clean. But extracting hydrogen from water requires energy -- fossil fuels or nuclear power, for example. How much hydrogen could be produced by a Large (1MW) wind turbine in a year??

[Astronuc]

One can find some information here.

Hydrogen Fuel Cells and Infrastructure Technology.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/analysis/cost.html

Technological Feasibility and Cost Analysis
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36734.pdf

Based on 3.1557 E7 sec/yr and 1 E6 J/s = 3.1557 E13 J/yr (for 1 MW windmill),

and simply using heat of formation of water - 285.83 kJ/mol,

then one obtains about 1.1E8 gmoles of H2 or 2.2 E8 g/H2 per year, but that assumes 100% efficiency.

For some bascis on electrolysis and fuel cells, see - http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/electrol.html#c1

The numbers from DOE's Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) are more realistic.

[willib]

220,000 kg of hydrogen from one wind turbine , thanks.. :smile:

[Astronuc]

220,000 kg of hydrogen from one wind turbine , thanks.. :smile:
It will most likely be less than that depending on the efficiency of the electrolytic cell. I assumed ideal conditions, not accounting for recombination and other effects.

The EERE reports should give better information.

[willib]

It will most likely be less than that depending on the efficiency of the electrolytic cell. I assumed ideal conditions, not accounting for recombination and other effects.

The EERE reports should give better information.
i understand , i was looking for a ballpark figure.. :smile:
Thats a lot of Hydrogen , no ?

[Ivan Seeking]

Note that there may be partial solutions to two key challenges to a hydrogen economy.

First of all, biofuels from algae appears to offer an efficient and practical solution to solar energy conversion. In effect, by farming algae for the production of biofuels, one grows the solar collector. Test crops have produced the fuel equivalent of about 925KW-Hrs per acre-day. Also, whereas alternate sources of biodiesel feedstock typically result in a return on invested energy of a little more than 300%, algae developers are claiming returns of up to 1000%.

Next, it occurs to me that the use of algae for biofuels - in particular, for biodiesel - offers a partial solution to what is known as the "chicken and egg problem" of a hydrogen economy. Since algae can be farmed for the production of biodiesel, an immediate economic justification and motive to farm algae exists. This is presently an infant industry. The biodiesel industry itself is growing quickly with many sources of feedstock including used cooking oil, and raw canola, soybean, palm, and rapeseed oil, to name a few.

As demand for hydrogen comes into play, since algae can be used to produce biodiesel, ethanol, or hydrogen, algae farms geered towards biodiesel production could likely convert to an algae that is well suited for hydrogen production. Much of the farming and processing requirements remain a constant.

In effect, we may have our source of hydrogen as well as a transition technology.

[LURCH]

You read my mind, Ivan. That is exactly the series of events I'm hoping to see happen. (I'm currently attending college with an eye towards working in the "alternative fools" industry.)

[Ivan Seeking]

Cool! :approve:

I hope to be knee deep in pond scum in a couple of years.

The yeild per acre per day for farmed algae is mind boggling. Even with a three-acre test plot, I should expect a little less than a ton of dry algae per day. [eh, more like 1300 Lbs]. This then should yield no less than 40% as much oil.

[Ivan Seeking]

Just caught this in the news.

BMW is the only major carmaker to bring a car with a hydrogen-combustion engine beyond the prototype stage.

The automaker's approach is markedly different than the more familiar concept of hydrogen-powered fuel cells, where energy is stored before it is converted into electricity. By contrast, BMW's Hydrogen 7 is powered by pumping hydrogen into a combustion engine and igniting it. The engine can burn both hydrogen and gasoline, and switches between the two at the flick of a switch.

Burning hydrogen is more efficient than converting it into electricity, making it the more practical choice for hydrogen-fueled cars now, according to BMW.[continued]
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/autotech/0,72100-0.html?tw=wn_index_1

[LURCH]

Burning hydrogen is more efficient than converting it into electricity, making it the more practical choice for hydrogen-fueled cars now, according to BMW

I'm prety sure they're just flat-out wrong about that one. Fuel cells are much more efficient than internal combustion.

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not sure what the basis is for their claim, but I imagine that they are talking about the hidden energy costs in the materials used and the construction of fuel cells. Presumably this hidden energy is indirectly related to price. I just checked and found a price of about $10,000 per KW for hydrogen fuel cell stacks. http://www.fuelcellstore.com/cgi-bin/fuelweb/view=Item/cat=31/product=869

The BMW is rated at 260HP which is about 194KW.

How much of the relatively high cost of fuel cells is ultimately representative of the hidden energy of production? Also, what is the lifetime of the fuel cells and how are they recycled?

[Ivan Seeking]

The world's hydrogen fueling stations
http://www.fuelcells.org/info/charts/h2fuelingstations.pdf

[Ivan Seeking]

First Analysis of the Water Requirements of a Hydrogen Economy

...Each of the energy choices we can make, in terms of fuels and technologies, has its own tradeoffs associated with it,” Webber said. “Hydrogen, just like ethanol, wind, solar, or other alternative choices, has many merits, but also has some important impacts to keep in mind, as this paper tries to suggest. I would encourage the continuation of research into hydrogen production as part of a comprehensive basket of approaches that are considered for managing the transition into the green energy era. But, because of some of the unexpected impacts—for example on water resources—it seems premature to determine that hydrogen is the answer we should pursue at the exclusion of other options.” [continued]
http://www.physorg.com/news111926048.html

The point missed is that electrolysis is likely not the path to a hydrogen economy.

[russ_watters]

And why can't we use seawater?

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes, seawater is plenty enough. edit: Perhaps the salt concentrations are too high and the resulting in maintenance issues make it cost prohibitive?

Also, I was thinking that this is a legitimate concern if using hydrogen from biomass that derives its hydrogen from fresh water. So, given that fresh water resources will grow [and are quickly growing] increasingly valuable, saltwater based biomass may be the best option for sourcing hydrogen; and for ethanol or biodiesel that is for distributed use, for that matter. In closed systems the water can be recovered after combustion.

[Ivan Seeking]

Woohoo! Today when I proposed a hydrogen powered system as a solution to a unique industrial problem, by the time that the owners realized that I was serious and that we really can do this, they were bouncing off the walls.

Yay! I get to design my first hydrogen powered system.

[432Charlie]

The hydrogen economy is the goal. The cheapest source of the energy to produce hydrogen from water is nuclear. Some engineer should be trying to figure out how to crack water from the heat generated by this energy source. Electrical generation of H2 and back to mechanical energy is use is too inefficient. The problem with H2 is it carries too little energy per unit wt.

Until this can be solved, we should be looking to make methane from hydrogen and CO2 with the energy from the nuclear energy source.

One idea that nobody seems to mention is getting rid of nuclear waste by jettison to the sun. I know we entered a treaty to ban delivery to the moon, but the sun certainly won't suffer.