- #71
- 8,142
- 1,756
Well, that stinks. I definitely see this as an issue.
Questions about a Hydrogen Economy; Scientific American
- Thread starter Ivan Seeking
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Economy Hydrogen Scientific
In summary, The conversation discussed the potential of a "hydrogen economy" and the role of hydrogen as an energy carrier. While there are concerns about the energy cost of producing hydrogen, there are various approaches and resources being explored to make it a viable option. The article mentioned in the Science American magazine provides a snapshot of the current state-of-the-art and there are ongoing initiatives and discussions about the use of hydrogen as an energy source. It is seen as a potential solution to our dependence on fossil fuels.
Well, that stinks. I definitely see this as an issue.
- #72
hitssquad
- 927
- 0
What is wrong with using gasoline as a hydrogen carrier
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?
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.Ivan Seeking said:
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?
- #73
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
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.Ivan Seeking said:
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?
- #74
LURCH
Science Advisor
- 2,558
- 118
hitssquad said:
I have never heard of this there is a way to make gasoline?!
- #75
Njorl
Science Advisor
- 288
- 19
LURCH said:
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
- #76
- 8,142
- 1,756
hitssquad said:
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?
- #77
- 8,142
- 1,756
A related story that popped up today.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,63913,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,63913,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1
Last edited by a moderator:
- #78
ivarf
- 2
- 0
M. L. Wald's article
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.
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.
- #79
hitssquad
- 927
- 0
Nuclear gasoline in your $500 engine
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.
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.Ivan Seeking said:
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.
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.
Last edited:
- #80
- 8,142
- 1,756
ivarf said:
Welcome to PF Ivarf.
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.
Not quite right. The ethanol fuel cell well-to-wheels efficiency is about 9%.
Absolutely. This is nearly a zero emissions fuel chain added to a zero emissions vehicle.
This is actually a little misleading in that it must assume coal fired electricity. What about solar powered electric, for example?
Last edited:
- #81
hitssquad
- 927
- 0
Tire pollution negates possibility of zero emissions vehicle
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.
Got tires?Ivan Seeking said:
- 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.
- #82
- 8,142
- 1,756
On the issue of electric-> H2-> electric, I wanted to quote a significant comment from the SciAm article.
- #83
Kenneth Mann
- 424
- 3
Hydrogen
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.
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.
- #84
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
Powerball? What kind of peculiar agenda are you up to?
- #85
hitssquad
- 927
- 0
Powerball.net, a hydrogen-storage technology company
It's a typo. Powerball.net is a hydrogen economy technology site.zoobyshoe said:
- 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.
- #86
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
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.
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.
- #87
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
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
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
Last edited by a moderator:
- #88
Kenneth Mann
- 424
- 3
NaH fuel system
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.
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.
- #89
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
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?
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?
- #90
- 8,142
- 1,756
hitssquad said:
Doesn't this mainly affect people living within 300 yards of a freeway?
- #91
Kenneth Mann
- 424
- 3
zoobyshoe said:
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.
- #92
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
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.
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.
- #93
Kenneth Mann
- 424
- 3
More on Powerball
There's a little bit more at:
http://www.isecorp.com/powerball_tank.htm
There's a little bit more at:
http://www.isecorp.com/powerball_tank.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
- #94
Kenneth Mann
- 424
- 3
Powerball coatings
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?)
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?)
- #95
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
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.Kenneth Mann said:
They are really only tested for airtightness. The coatings don't seem to be tested for thin spots that could be easily abraded away.
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 a lot more safety precautions than they're sitting down and facing in their talk about distribution.
Yes, different applications, maybe.
Last edited:
- #96
- 8,142
- 1,756
Last edited by a moderator:
- #97
- 8,142
- 1,756
Also, a significant link that was missed.
The International Association For Hydrogen Energy
http://www.iahe.org/
The International Association For Hydrogen Energy
http://www.iahe.org/
- #98
- 8,142
- 1,756
Here is an example of another approach to production.
The complete text or PDF is available
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/1/127
The complete text or PDF is available
http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/abstract/122/1/127
Last edited:
- #99
revere521
- 5
- 0
water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, i wonder if that will matter.
- #100
- 8,142
- 1,756
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.
- #101
shonagon53
- 16
- 0
Hydrogen is not a good carrier
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.
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.
Last edited:
- #102
- 8,142
- 1,756
Although you make some good points I do question the well-to-wheels efficiency of any battery technology. Ultimately this number reflects cost.
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.
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.
- #103
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
I've never heard of the aluminum battery. Do you have a link to a good site about them?
- #104
shonagon53
- 16
- 0
Ivan Seeking said:
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].
- #105
shonagon53
- 16
- 0
zoobyshoe said:
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.]
Last edited:
Similar threads
-
General Discussion