A Hydrogen economy: Be a part of the change

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
How many people per year do STAIRS kill? (Btw, I think that's 40,000 total people, not just children).

You could be right; but the number of children killed really surprised me when I heard it. It really thought it was in the tens of thousands. I will check...this could also be injuries... Still though, we ban products for fractions of as much injury and death.


Edit: you're right. About 10,000 kids, 40,000 total.
That's much better.
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/finalreport.cfm?title=People&stateid=0&year=2001&title2=All_Victims

By the way Russ, I didn't mean to make this a point. However, many people falsely perceive H2 as dangerous - as compared to what we are familiar with. I was really pointing to this for perspective. Many notions of relative danger here are often way out of proportion if not completely wrong. Many H2 advocates claim that had it not been for the Hindenberg, we would already find H2 in use today. They argue that public perception turned against H2 but without any justification for such.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by wimms
indeed, we need biologists here. We need a bacteria that chews junk, farts hydrogen and ****s packaged carbon nanotubes

I wanted to point out here that this approach can break the implicit dependence on solar power. Most forms of alternative energy ultimately depend on solar power - wind, photovoltaic, solar-chemical, dams; these all have solar power as a source. As an option to this dependence, and as an example, perhaps bacteria can be designed that consume salt for energy from salt water, and then give off H2 as a byproduct. This could mean a much higher energy density for the H2 production system. Solar systems are limited to about 100 watts per sp meter [edit: in practice. I had said as an upper limit which is really about 1000 WM^-2]. This limitations would of course include solar powered bacteria.

Edit much after the fact:
Obviously this is a unrealistically optimistic suggestion, but I meant to present a theoretical best case of sorts; just for consideration. Real options will clearly be less ideal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Zantra
for disposal of hydrocells, has any thought been given to a recycling or recharging method?(If the point was made earlier, sorry but I missed it)...

There are the logistics of costs to the consumer to consider.I imagine the initial vehicles will run around 50-60k minimum to start, but mass production and reduction of costs through other means should eventually bring it down to a more respectable 30k. This of course is just a rough estimate.

So it appears the "back to the future" hover car powered by garbage isn't so far off

I am sure this is being investigated. But this issue of the total energy cost for a system seems to go mostly unnoticed. I am sure that eventually fuel cells will come of age in an energy competitive sense. But for cars, I just don't see it in the near future. Don't misunderstand however, IMO all options are better than fossil fuels...even if it means my car has to be a gutless wonder. Maybe the engineers will surprise me...

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
By the way Russ, I didn't mean to make this a point. However, many people falsely perceive H2 as dangerous - as compared to what we are familiar with. I was really pointing to this for perspective. Many notions of relative danger here are often way out of proportion if not completely wrong. Many H2 advocates claim that had it not been for the Hindenberg, we would already find H2 in use today. They argue that public perception turned against H2 but without any justification for such.

Fair enough. I tend to disagree with your overall point though about hydrogen. Nobody died directly from hydrogen burns on the Hindenberg because heat (and gaseous hydrogen) rises. But they most certainly did die as a result of the inflammability of hydrogen. Its tough to compare it to something like gasoline though because obviously they aren't used for the same things at the moment.

edit: oberall? wtf is oberall?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Fair enough. I tend to disagree with your oberall point though about hydrogen. Nobody died directly from hydrogen burns on the Hindenberg because heat (and gaseous hydrogen) rises. But they most certainly did die as a result of the inflammability of hydrogen. Its tough to compare it to something like gasoline though because obviously they aren't used for the same things at the moment.

This is one of the key points argued. The nature of H2 makes it implicitly safe compared to liquids or heavy gases. The advocates argue that due to its rapid dispersal, it is really very hard to get burned by H2 in most situations.

One interesting note: It is now "known" that it was the UV resistant paint that covered the skin of the Hindenburg that actually burst into flames. This observation was first made when one person was looking at the famous Hindenburg movies and pictures. He noticed that even though a huge ball of fire is seen around and above the blimp, the thing has not lost buoyancy. It was sitting perfectly level in the sky. If this much H2 was burning he reasoned, the blimp should be falling like a rock. It turns out that the paint used was highly flammable - made with some chemical common in jet fuel, and aluminum. So really, this was the world’s greatest painting disaster. This thing would have almost certainly ignited and crashed even if it had been filled with Helium.

Edit: Pieces of the skin from the Hindenberg were obtained - kept ever since the blimp was made. 70 years later the paint is still highly flammable!

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Fair enough. I tend to disagree with your oberall point though about hydrogen.

What do you think of the concept of conversion to H2? Did you mean the safety issues here, or did you mean the whole premise?

I have been an alternative energy freak since I was a kid. As I learned about the total energy cost for a given technology, I really approached a point of hopelessness. It seemed that no matter what we do, we are stuck with a declining oil supply as the base of all of these technologies. The more high tech things get, the harder it is to break even on energy costs over the lifetime of a given device. It is a vicious circle. To me, H2 seems to offer solutions to all energy problems. It really strikes me as THE elegant solution.

 

[Joy Division]

Personally I don't feel that the US is in a posistion right now where it would be possible to create hydrogen, (especially from electrolosys) in any way that was safer for the environment than fossil fuels. Considering 65% of the US's power is from fossil fuels.

There are other places that have the means to produce hydrogen in a way that would be beneficial but the problem in these places is there is not enough demand for hydrogen to produce it.

The hydrogen economy is on the horizon but it's still a ways off

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
Personally I don't feel that the US is in a posistion right now where it would be possible to create hydrogen, (especially from electrolosys) in any way that was safer for the environment than fossil fuels. Considering 65% of the US's power is from fossil fuels.

There are other places that have the means to produce hydrogen in a way that would be beneficial but the problem in these places is there is not enough demand for hydrogen to produce it.

The hydrogen economy is on the horizon but it's still a ways off

Could you give some examples of what you mean?

 

[Joy Division]

Examples? You mean of places that could produce hydrogen in a more beneficial manner than burning fossil fuels?

Well any place that produces most of it's power by means other than fossil fuels. An example would be here in Manitoba, 99% of our power is from hydroelectic damns. We produce an excess of power that is usually sold to the states south of us. There is some talk here of using some of that power to produce hyrdogen. However there is not enough demand for hydrogen right now to justify spending the money on creating a hydrogen infrastructure.

I think the biggest benefit of the hydrogen economy push is that it requires that we stop burning fossil fuels for power. That is because it's worse to burn fossil fuels to create hydrogen to burn than it is just to burn the fossil fuels in the first place.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by Joy Division
However there is not enough demand for hydrogen right now to justify spending the money on creating a hydrogen infrastructure.

Ah, the chicken and the egg problem. We can't drive H2 powered cars until we have the H2; and we can't make the H2 until we have demand.

This is why change will require an orchestrated effort...like fighting a war but for something positive instead. Really it is a matter of time. Eventually I think H2 will win due to economics. But if we wait for this market to evolve naturally, due to the heavily embedded oil market, this could take 50 years or more. However, this is the trick: We can convert cars to run on H2 overnight. The demand can be virtually instantaneous. This is the beauty of H2 combustion. In principle, we can run the stuff tomorrow! We don't need to wait 20 years for pie in the sky promises from alternative technologies. We don’t need to wait 30 years for consumer acceptance. We don’t need to wait for $75,000 cars to become affordable. I completely support many alternative technologies, but we don't need to wait any longer. The complete solution to the energy problems we face will surely be a hybrid of many technologies. But it all comes back to H2.

The greatest hopes for the immediate production of H2 lie with wind. H2 and wind go very well together since wind is a really lousy consumer electrical power source; it is never a constant. Massive wind generating systems are in place and new ones are being built. Most likely, first we will see test communities established in wind friendly areas. With some success, we then duplicate and upscale the effort. As photovoltaic cells gain efficiency, and as other sun focusing technologies evolve, other options will exist. We do also need to push the biological research to yield more efficient designer-bacteria H2 sources; this is a longer term goal – hopefully in the 10 years range; but probably more like 20.

Note that the cost of H2 conversion is offset by the financial benefits of ridding the US of its oil addiction. H2 does not create a money pit…in fact it most likely will have just the opposite effect.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What do you think of the concept of conversion to H2? Did you mean the safety issues here, or did you mean the whole premise?

In that specific quote I was talking only about the safety issue. As far as the overall premise, I already gave my opinion - I believe it to be a pseudo-scientific smoke screen.

Though hydrogen powered cars are a good idea if you ignore where the hydrogen comes from (and EVERY public advocate ignores the manufacture of hydrogen), the practical issue of where the hydrogen comes from is EVERYTHING here.

Joe touches on this: without first converting the entire electric power grid to renewable energy (then expanding it to meet the new load), it must be assumed that hydrogen will be manufactured using existing generation capacity and/or technology. Since virtually all new electric generation capacity is fossil fuel (gas turbine), virtually all of the energy used to manufacture the hydrogen would just be re-directed fossil fuel energy.

Maybe in 100 years when our power grid is converted to fusion, then we can consider electric and/or hydrogen internal combustion cars to replace the remaining oil. Then again, maybe battery technology will have improved a little by then as well.

The point is: hydrogen is not a fuel, it is a storage medium.

I have been an alternative energy freak since I was a kid. As I learned about the total energy cost for a given technology, I really approached a point of hopelessness. It seemed that no matter what we do, we are stuck with a declining oil supply as the base of all of these technologies. The more high tech things get, the harder it is to break even on energy costs over the lifetime of a given device. It is a vicious circle.

Believe it or not, I to am an alternate energy freak. But I'm also a mechanical engineer and the VIABILITY of the various alternate energy possibilities remains a big hangup. I am a big fan of fusion (and fission) research, solar panel roof tax breaks, and hybrid cars. I even did my own little study recently of the rough cost and requirements for replacing the global generation capacity with solar power (its not good).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
In that specific quote I was talking only about the safety issue. As far as the overall premise, I already geve my opinion - I believe it to be a pseudo-scientific smoke screen.

Though hydrogen powered cars are a good idea if you ignore where the hydrogen comes from (and EVERY public advocate ignores the manufacture of hydrogen), the practical issue of where the hydrogen comes from is EVERYTHING here.

Joe touches on this: without first converting the entire electric power grid to renewable energy (then expanding it to meet the new load), it must be assumed that hydrogen will be manufactured using existing generation capacity and/or technology. Since virtually all new electric generation capacity is fossil fuel (gas turbine), virtually all of the energy used to manufacture the hydrogen would just be re-directed fossil fuel energy.

Maybe in 100 years when our power grid is converted to fusion, then we can consider electric and/or hydrogen internal combustion cars to replace the remaining oil. Then again, maybe battery technology will have improved a little by then as well.

The point is: hydrogen is not a fuel, it is a storage medium.

Believe it or not, I to am an alternate energy freak. But I'm also a mechanical engineer and the VIABILITY of the various alternate energy possibilities remains a big hangup. I am a big fan of fusion (and fission) research, solar panel roof tax breaks, and hybrid cars. I even did my own little study recently of the rough cost and requirements for replacing the global generation capacity with solar power (its not good).

No doubt that what you reference here are significant problems. Hydrogen is a storage medium. There is a chance of a stored fuel supply 50 Km down, but it will surely be a long time before we have the technology to drill so deeply. However, I don't agree that experts ignore this issue. For example, one of the sources listed is Los Alamos Nat. Labs - hardly pseudo-scientific.

"Renewable energy sources such as wind and photovoltaic are friendly to the atmosphere but are intermittent and diffuse. Both of these limitations can be overcome -- at a price -- by converting renewable energy into hydrogen, a readily storable, transportable, clean burning energy carrier. The technical and economic obstacles to the widespread use of solar energy and hydrogen are outlined.

James J. MacKenzie
Senior Associate
World Resources Institute
Los Alamos, New Mexico
http://education.lanl.gov/resources/h2/education.html
Go to the bottom of the linked page and go to "Resources". This particular paper is then at the top of the page.


I don't pretend to have all of the answers, but if people of this caliber are convinced that this makes sense, I don't think the arguments can be so easily dismissed. Since this is a legitimate sticking point, I will gather some info that addresses this issue.

 

[Joy Division]

While I think solar power (photovoltaic cells specifically) has it's place. I doubt it will ever be used as the main source of power for our energy concerns. To actually be competetive with other types of energy production it would have to be as cheap to cover an area in photocells as it would be to lay concrete over that same area. I believe in a tax break solar energy program like russ.

Wind power is a little better off. In the near future as techs advance and more people realize that wind power can work in some areas, you will see a lot more wind turbines pop up over the countryside. Perhaps privately owned ones as well.

Hydroelectric power while good would never be enough to keep up with the growing power consumption. It's too stressfull on the environemnt to be the one key factor in power production.

This leaves us with nuclear energy. Right now it is the cleanest and ,if treated with respect and well regulated, safest form of energy we can get. Until a fusion power plant actually breaks even. This is the most economical way to keep up with power consumption. Of course this assumes that the public's hysterical fear of radiation doesn't get in the way.

So that's how I see the near future at least. Nuclear as the backbone and hydro, wind and solar supplementing nuclear in certain areas. The big deal is that the switch has to be made and wind/solar I think will help in that regard by being low initial investment alternatives to large scale power plant replacement. So that coal/gas buring power plants will be slowly phased out.

 

[Zantra]

Between the logistics involved and the major changes that would be needed to convert everything over, I see 30-50 years being more of a realistic target timeframe for total conversion, even if everyone got behind it today.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
...one of the sources listed is Los Alamos Nat. Labs - hardly pseudo-scientific.

I'm not sure of the actual relationship there. The site says "hosted by " LANL. By the look of it, its a personal site of several scientists hosted by LANL. It hasn't been updated in 7 years.

Also, you have to be a little careful about government research labs - they research whatever the government tell them to research regardless of actual viability. The National Aerospace Plane and Ronald Reagan's Star Wars come to mind. These were widely known to be impossible (at the time anyway) even as the government poured billions into developing them.

Also, their point is that renewable energy (specifically solar and wind power) should be implimented and used to make hydrogen. As I said before, using renewable energy to replace fossil fuels in existing energy production is a far larger issue than using new capacity to generate hydrogen. This is based stricly on the quantity of energy we are talking about.

I'm trying to think of an analogy that will get this point across - clearly I have failed so far. How about this: You find a genie and he gives you three wishes and asks what your first wish is. You say: 'hydrogen fuel cells for cars!' He's going to charge you two wishes for that - one for the hydrogen fuel infrastructure/vehicles, and one for replacing 14 terawwats of electric generation with solar power.

Only AFTER you have replaced all of our existing electric generation capacity with renewable energy does it make sense to move on to use hydrogen fuel for cars.

This leaves us with nuclear energy.

I too think nuclear energy is the answer (at least for the next 50 years) to our energy AND POLLUTION problems. But...

Of course this assumes that the public's hysterical fear of radiation doesn't get in the way.

Yep. And you KNOW it will. This is one of those instances where the government needs to step in and force people to accept what's good for them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I'm not sure of the actual relationship there. The site says "hosted by " LANL. By the look of it, its a personal site of several scientists hosted by LANL. It hasn't been updated in 7 years.I'm trying to think of an analogy that will get this point across - clearly I have failed so far. How about this: You find a genie and he gives you three wishes and asks what your first wish is. You say: 'hydrogen fuel cells for cars!' He's going to charge you two wishes for that - one for the hydrogen fuel infrastructure/vehicles, and one for replacing 14 terawwats of electric generation with solar power.

I grabbed a quick link for reference. I think the paper still addresses some of these issues. It's not as if a lot has changed in seven years.

Next, I understand your objections. These were mine also. I wanted to take some time and dig up some comprehensive discussions of this. I can say for starters that the University of Hawaii is working with biological H2 production. Anyway, I will need a little time to get this all together. As you are well aware, many issues are involved here.

Edit: and Russ...don't worry. I have faith that our mechanical engineers are smart [edit: brilliant] enough to solve these problems!


Edit #2: You are thinking in terms of a tiered [centralized] distribution system. I agree that we could not change in the way that you are thinking. That's one of the benefits of H2: We can produce it virtually anywhere. For starters, before we start counting the cost, what is the energy savings since we avoid drilling, pumping [environmental concerns and real costs], shipping, refinement, and distribution...per gallon? .

 

[Ivan Seeking]

BIOMASS TO H2

Originally posted by russ_watters
Joe touches on this: without first converting the entire electric power grid to renewable energy (then expanding it to meet the new load), it must be assumed that hydrogen will be manufactured using existing generation capacity and/or technology. Since virtually all new electric generation capacity is fossil fuel (gas turbine), virtually all of the energy used to manufacture the hydrogen would just be re-directed fossil fuel energy.

This idea of converting the electrical infrastructure is not the solution. This again is thinking in terms of a tiered distribution system. However, before getting into this more deeply, I will list some of the science being done for various methods of H2 production. Let me know when you have calculated to complete energy cost per gallon for gasoline. I am assuming that thus far, no one knows this answer. Nonetheless, I will begin to account for these energy costs for H2. Of course a full energy accounting for gasoline will also be needed for comparison.

Here are a few excerpts from the biomass approach to H2 production. Please note the 80-90% yields.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/iea/pdfs/hydrogen_biomass.pdf

State of the Art and Research Challenges
Thomas A. Milne, Carolyn C. Elam and Robert J. Evans
National Renewable Energy Laboratory
Golden, CO USA

A Report for the International Energy Agency
Agreement on the Production and Utilization of Hydrogen
Task 16, Hydrogen from Carbon-Containing Materials


DIRECT PRODUCTION FROM WHOLE BIOMASS

Gasification

Thermal/Steam/Partial Oxidation

This section briefly covers processes that will be addressed in detail in a new cooperative Task of the IEA Bioenergy Agreement. It is included here for completeness of the survey under the IEA Hydrogen Agreement Task 16, Hydrogen from Carbon-Containing Materials. [Dr. Suresh Babu (USA) at the Gas Technology Institute can be contacted for details of the IEA Bioenergy Agreement.s gasification-to-hydrogen plans.] Consideration of hydrogen from carbonaceous materials has a long history in the .hydrogen. literature. At the First World Hydrogen Energy Conference, Tsaros et al. (1976) (USA) reported on three routes to hydrogen using sub-bituminous coal. (Their ultimate goal was liquid fuels.) The processes considered were: (1) Koppers-Totzek; (2) U-Gas and (3) Steam-iron. Hydrogen yields of 93-96% of theoretical were predicted. Soo et al. (1978) (USA) present calculations and experimental data on steam processes to convert coal to hydrogen. A large excess of steam (4 moles water to 1 mole carbon) at 1300°C produces up to 90% hydrogen without the need for shift conversion. It was claimed that their process is a better source of hydrogen than Hygas or Steam-iron. Eliminating the need for pure oxygen renders this process superior to the large, Totzek and Synthane processes.

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. The U-Gas® process for producing hydrogen from coal is discussed by Dihu and Patel (1983) (USA). U-Gas® has been developed by IGT from over 50 years of coalconversion research. It comprises a single-stage, non-slagging, fluidized-bed gasifier using oxygen or air. Pilot plant results and economic projections of the cost of hydrogen are given. Pilot-scale experiments in the steam gasification of charred cellulosic waste material are discussed in Rabah and Eddighidy (1986) (Egypt). The beneficial effects of some inorganic salts, such as chlorides, carbonates and chromates, on the reaction rate and production cost of hydrogen were investigated.

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...


PRODUCTION OF STORABLE INTERMEDIATES FROM BIOMASS PARTIAL CONVERSION

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. In first experiments, Nibased catalysts were favorable (80% of theoretical maximum hydrogen yield has been obtained), but enough CO remained to require the addition of a water-gas shift step. Low biomass costs are needed to produce hydrogen economically since feedstock cost is a major component of production cost. In Wang et al. (1995) laboratory and bench-scale studies of model compounds of oxygenates known to be present in pyrolysis oil were presented. Ni-based catalysts were used in microscale laboratory tests to identify the conversion products. All model compounds were successfully steam reformed. Bench-scale, fixed-bed tubular reactor experiments indicate that control of coke formation was a key aspect of the process. Loss of activity of the nickel catalysts after a few hours forced periodic regeneration. It was shown that
CO2 from a pressure swing absorption step effectively removed the coke.

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. Depending on biomass feedstock costs, the selling price for steam reforming hydrogen is predicted to fall within the then current market price of hydrogen ($5-$15/GJ). One of the most promising coproducts from whole bio-oil is an adhesive. In Chornet et al., (1996c) economics and plant design are summarized. The initial refereed journal reports of the above work are in Wang et al. (1996), and Wang et al. (1997b). The first paper documents the catalytic steam reforming results for acetic acid and hydroxyacetaldehyde using a micro-reactor and molecular-beam mass spectrometry. The second paper consolidates the early work on model compounds, nickel-catalysts and reforming of both whole bio-oils and oils after extraction of valuable chemicals. Economics, process designs and thermodynamics are discussed. In 1998, the NREL group published data on bench-scale reforming results from model compounds, the aqueous-fraction of poplar pyrolysis oil and whole pyrolysis oil with commercial nickel-based steam reforming catalysts. Hydrogen yields as high as 85% were obtained .

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Small scale reformer technologies

REVIEW OF SMALL STATIONARY REFORMERS FOR HYDROGEN PRODUCTION
I. INTRODUCTION
II. HYDROGEN SUPPLY OPTIONS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION SECTOR
III.DESCRIPTION OF SMALL-SCALE REFORMER TECHNOLOGIES
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE COOPERATIVE
PROJECTS

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/iea/pdfs/small_scale_reformers_rev.pdf

Dr. Joan M. Ogden
Research scientist
Center for Energy and Environmental Studies
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544
Phone: (609) 258-5470

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Solar H2 production

SOLAR PHOTOPRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN
by
James R. Bolton
Department of Chemistry
The University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5B7
IEA Agreement on the Production and Utilisation of Hydrogen

The concept of using solar energy to drive the conversion of water into hydrogen and oxygen has been examined, from the standpoints of: potential and ideal efficiencies, measurement of (and how to calculate) solar hydrogen production efficiencies, a survey of the state-of-the-art, and a technological assessment of various solar hydrogen options.

The analysis demonstrates that the ideal limit of the conversion efficiency for 1 sun irradiance is ¡_31% for a single photosystem scheme and ¡_42% for a dual photosystem scheme. However, practical considerations indicate that real efficiencies will not likely exceed ¡_10% and ¡_16% for single and dual photosystem schemes, respectively.

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

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/iea/pdfs/solar_photoproduction.pdf

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Photoelectrolytic and Photobiological Production of Hydrogen

From:
IEA Strategic Plan

The strategy of the IEA's Hydrogen Program is to facilitate, coordinate, and maintain innovative RD&D activities through international cooperation and information exchange. Seven areas are targeted: Technology, Energy Security, Environmental, Economic, Market, Deployment, and Outreach.


Photoelectrolytic Production of Hydrogen

Task 14, Photoelectrolytic Production of Hydrogen, is a continuation on the efforts of the now completed Task 10, Photoproduction of Hydrogen, in which there was a subtask devoted to the photoelectrolytic approaches to hydrogen production. The following are the accomplishments of that earlier work and the basis for the new task:

A solar-to-hydrogen efficiency of 16%—the highest reported efficiency to date—was achieved using a tandem photo-electrochemical cell. The materials used in this cell are still too costly for this to be an economically competitive technology in the near term. However, lower cost materials have shown similar promise.

Standards for measuring and reporting solar efficiencies were defined. These standards are essential for making realistic comparisons between various photo-based systems for hydrogen production.

Promising economics have been found when hydrogen production is performed in conjunction with photodegradation of organic waste. Efficiency improvements seen with organic pollutants (from 4% up to 9%), combined with the cost benefit of combining degradation of organic pollutants with hydrogen production, show great promise for commercial application.

Photobiological Production of Hydrogen

Task 15, Photobiological Production of Hydrogen, is a continuation of the efforts of the now completed Task 10, Photoproduction of Hydrogen, in which there was a subtask devoted to the photobiological approaches to hydrogen production. The following are the accomplishments and contributions of the task and the basis for the new task:
The University of Hawaii (USA) designed, built, and tested a process-development-scale photo-bioreactor. This reactor has lower capital and operating costs than other designs.

System analyses and process economics were reviewed for hydrogen production using hydrogenase-based bioreactor systems.

A database on hydrogen-producing microorganisms was established.

The task provided sponsorship for the BioHydrogen '97 meeting in Waikoloa, Hawaii, USA. This meeting brought together academic, industrial, and governmental scientists from more than ten countries to share recent technological advances in biological hydrogen production. Presentation areas included the fundamentals of biological processes, photosynthetic bacteria, cyanobacteria, green algae, fermentations, mixed-hybrid systems, and photobioreactors. The Hydrogen Agreement provided support for the publication of the proceedings from the conference (published this past year).

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/hydrogen/iea/accomplishments.html#photoelectrolytic

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/

See also:
Abstract
A method for producing hydrogen includes providing a feed stream comprising water; contacting at least one proton conducting membrane adapted to interact with the feed stream; splitting the water into hydrogen and oxygen at a predetermined temperature; and separating the hydrogen from the oxygen. Preferably the proton conducting membrane comprises a proton conductor and a second phase material. Preferable proton conductors suitable for use in a proton conducting membrane include a lanthanide element, a Group VIA element and a Group IA or Group IIA element such as barium, strontium, or combinations of these elements. More preferred proton conductors include yttrium. Preferable second phase materials include platinum, palladium, nickel, cobalt, chromium, manganese, vanadium, silver, gold, copper, rhodium, ruthenium, niobium, zirconium, tantalum, and combinations of these. More preferably second phase materials suitable for use in a proton conducting membrane include nickel, palladium, and combinations of these. The method for generating hydrogen is preferably preformed in the range between about 600.degree. C. and 1,700.degree. C.

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

DENSE CERAMIC MEMBRANES FOR HYDROGEN SEPARATION

DENSE CERAMIC MEMBRANES FOR HYDROGEN SEPARATION

U. (Balu) Balachandran, T. H. Lee, S. Wang, G. Zhang and S. E. Dorris
Energy Technology Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439

Corresponding author: U. (Balu) Balachandran, phone 630-252-4250; fax 630-252-3604;
email: balu@anl.gov

ABSTRACT
Novel cermet (i.e., ceramic-metal composite) membranes have been developed for separating hydrogen from product streams that are generated during coal gasification, methane partial oxidation, and watergas shift reactions. The hydrogen permeation rate in the temperature range of 600-900°C has been measured for three classes (ANL-1, -2, and -3) of cermet membranes. ANL-3 membranes provided the
highest hydrogen flux: ≈20 cm3(STP)/min-cm2 for a 40-µm-thick sample at 900oC using 100% H2 as the feed gas. The effects of membrane thickness and hydrogen partial pressure on hydrogen flux indicate
that the bulk diffusion of hydrogen is rate-limiting for ANL-3 membranes with thickness >40 µm. ANL-3 membranes were tested in simulated syngas (66% H2, 33% CO, 1% CO2) at several temperatures
for times approaching ≈200 h, and no degradation in performance was observed. The lack of degradation in simulated syngas suggests that the membrane is chemically stable and may be suitable for
long-term operation.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

HYDROGEN FROM COAL

Executive Summary:
This report examines current and advanced technologies to produce hydrogen from coal. The performance and economics of these technologies are analyzed including configurations for carbon sequestration. For comparison, the economics of producing
hydrogen from natural gas and photovoltaic (PV)/water electrolysis are included. Ten hydrogen production cases are analyzed in this report. Three of the cases (cases 1 through 3) produce only hydrogen and three (cases 4 through 6) are coproduction cases that co-produce hydrogen and electric power. Cases 7 and 8 use solid oxide fuel cells
(SOFC) for electric power production and cases 9 and 10 coproduce hydrogen and power using SOFC technology. Case 1 is a Texaco quench gasification system with conventional acid gas removal and pressure swing adsorption (PSA) for hydrogen recovery. There is no carbon sequestration in this case. This is a single train 3,000 tons per day (TPD) plant producing 131 MMSCFD of hydrogen. Case 2 is similar to Case 1 except that all of the carbon dioxide is removed prior to the PSA unit. It is then assumed that this concentrated and compressed stream of carbon dioxide can be sequestered for an additional cost of $10 per ton of carbon. The configuration for Case 3 uses advanced E-gas gasification with hot gas cleanup in
combination with a ceramic membrane system operating at about 600 degrees Centigrade that is capable of shifting and separating hydrogen from the clean synthesis gas. If it is assumed that the cost of the ceramic membrane system is equal to the combined cost of
an equivalent conventional amine and PSA system, the RSP of the hydrogen is estimated to be $5.89/MMBtu. In Case 4, two trains of advanced entrained gasification are used and the coal feed is 6,000 TPD. One train makes synthesis gas to feed the PSA unit for hydrogen production and the other train makes synthesis gas to feed a combined cycle power plant. Case 5 is similar to Case 4 except that all the synthesis gas is shifted and after cooling and shift the carbon dioxide is removed in a bulk carbon dioxide removal
system for sequestration. Case 6 is similar to Case 3 except that two trains of gasification are used that process 6000 TPD of coal to provide synthesis gas to the 600 degrees C ceramic membrane separation device. Tables ES 1 and ES 2 summarize the results of this analysis for hydrogen from coal and for coproduction of hydrogen and power.

Again, search Hydrogen
http://www.netl.doe.gov/

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A brief diversion

A NATIONAL VISION OF
AMERICA'S TRANSITION TO
A HYDROGEN ECONOMY —
TO 2030 AND BEYOND

Based on the results of the
National Hydrogen Vision Meeting
Washington, DC
November 15-16, 2001

http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/vision_doc.pdf

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Let me know when you have calculated to complete energy cost per gallon for gasoline.

I'm not sure what you are asking here. Gas costs about $1.50 /gal where I live. Thats the complete cost to take the gas from a well in Kuait to the gas tank of my car. Could you rephrase?

A couple of important things to remember about hydrogen production: If the reactants are a fossil fuel and oxygen, the products are ALWAYS the same, regardless of the various intermediate reactions. In other words, if you take methane and extract the hydrogen, then burn the hydrogen, the products are still the same as if you had burned the methane to begin with: water and carbon dioxide. It may be slightly more efficient, but it doesn't address the root problems - it still requires fossil fuel and still gives off greenhouse gasses.

Also, electrolysis is electrolysis. Though it may be possible to catalyze it to reduce the voltage required (I'm not sure why voltage would be a problem in the first place - your tv operates at 10,000V) the POWER required is always going to be the same according to the first law of thermodynamics.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Gas costs about $1.50 /gal where I live. Thats the complete cost to take the gas from a well in Kuait to the gas tank of my car. Could you rephrase?

Sure. How many gallons of gasoline, also diesel and electric power, go into every gallon of gasoline that you put into your car - the complete energy cost from ground to tank. If we use cost as a basis, then it would seem that power equivalent to ten gallons of gasoline go into every gallon of gasoline. This since the price per barrel for crude goes from $5 to $50 from beginning to end.

A couple of important things to remember about hydrogen production: If the reactants are a fossil fuel and oxygen, the products are ALWAYS the same, regardless of the various intermediate reactions. In other words, if you take methane and extract the hydrogen, then burn the hydrogen, the products are still the same as if you had burned the methane to begin with: water and carbon dioxide. It may be slightly more efficient, but it doesn't address the root problems - it still requires fossil fuel and still gives off greenhouse gasses.

But in the literature you will note that the CO₂ is recaptured as a part of the process. Also, coal provides a substantial energy reservoir that is US owned and operated. No more politics. This gives a giant boost the H2 source problem, but still provides a clean alternative. I have always seen clean coal technologies as viable.

Also, electrolysis is electrolysis. Though it may be possible to catalyze it to reduce the voltage required (I'm not sure why voltage would be a problem in the first place - your tv operates at 10,000V) the POWER required is always going to be the same according to the first law of thermodynamics.

I think this is simply a matter that more efficient processes are being investigated with some success.

Edit: How lossy are the power supplies and tranformers for electrolysis? I think that high voltage flyback circuits and such get down to 40 and 50% efficiencies. Of course we have a theoretical limit based on the bond energies of the water; but we lose energy getting to the requried voltages.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Sure. How many gallons of gasoline, also diesel and electric power, go into every gallon of gasoline that you put into your car - the complete energy cost from ground to tank. If we use cost as a basis, then it would seem that power equivalent to ten gallons of gasoline go into every gallon of gasoline. This since the price per barrel for crude goes from $5 to $50 from beginning to end.

Are you literally saying 9 gallons (hypothetically) goes straight down the drain? The difference in cost isn't waste its transportation, distribution, and profit. Very little gasoline is actually wasted during refining. I think $1.50 really is the number you are looking for.

But in the literature you will note that the CO2 is recaptured as a part of the process.

Recaptured how?

Also, coal provides a substantial energy reservoir that is US owned and operated. No more politics. This gives a giant boost the H2 source problem, but still provides a clean alternative. I have always seen clean coal technologies as viable.

I agree with the first part, but "clean"? Burning of coal has one product: Carbon dioxide. Its the dirtiest fuel we have. Sure there are scrubbers and things to make it cleanER (and of course the same goes for oil), but it still can't be characterized as "clean."

How lossy are the power supplies and tranformers for electrolysis?

Not very. Hydrogen production by electrolysis and recombination through fuel cells are both highly efficient processes. Remember, before it gets to your house the electricity you use is stepped up and down through a wide range of voltages (up to 500,000V) with the goal of MINIMIZING losses.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Are you literally saying 9 gallons (hypothetically) goes straight down the drain? The difference in cost isn't waste its transportation, distribution, and profit. Very little gasoline is actually wasted during refining. I think $1.50 really is the number you are looking for.

What about the energy to drill the well, pump the oil, pipe the oil, ship the oil, pump the oil, crack the crude [not waste, energy], and then distribute the gasoline?

Recaptured how?

I have not read in detail how this is accomplished. I know that this is mentioned often as not being a problem.

I agree with the first part, but "clean"? Burning of coal has one product: Carbon dioxide. Its the dirtiest fuel we have. Sure there are scrubbers and things to make it cleanER (and of course the same goes for oil), but it still can't be characterized as "clean."

The advocates of coal claim that this is possible even for coal combustion. I can only assume that these assertions are true. Combustion is very different however from the steam processes explored for H₂ extraction.

Hydrogen production by electrolysis and recombination through fuel cells are both highly efficient processes. Remember, before it gets to your house the electricity you use is stepped up and down through a wide range of voltages (up to 500,000V) with the goal of MINIMIZING losses.

But goals to minimize are not the same as nearly lossless. Xformers can range widely in their efficiencies. Granted, PWM and PFM using FETs and IGBTs is very good for low voltage [<1000 VAC] - up to 95% in some applications. But for very high voltages the losses sharply rise. I can only assume that this accounts for the alternative strategies. I posted the sources. Why don’t you email him and ask?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
What about the energy to drill the well, pump the oil, pipe the oil, ship the oil, pump the oil, crack the crude [not waste, energy], and then distribute the gasoline?

If that wasn't part of that $1.50, then Exxon wouldn't turn a profit.

I know that this is mentioned often as not being a problem.

Famous last words - like everything else in this thread, the devil is in the details.

Why don’t you email him and ask?

Naa. Not that important.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
If that wasn't part of that $1.50, then Exxon wouldn't turn a profit.

But it speaks to how much demand actually exists. Are you afraid to deal with the facts?

Famous last words - like everything else in this thread, the devil is in the details.

Like every other objection that you've made, these too can be answered with 10 minutes of research.

Naa. Not that important.

Sorry. I thought you were trying to be objective.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
But it speaks to how much demand actually exists. Are you afraid to deal with the facts?

What? It IS a fact that EVERYTHING involved in the production of that gallon of gas is included in that $1.50. I really don't understand what you are trying to say here. What is this 'fact' that I'm not dealing with?

Like every other objection that you've made, these too can be answered with 10 minutes of research.

Well, no, that's not what I meant. If the solution was that easy, it would already have been implimented.

There really is no need for this thread to be so antagonistic.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
There really is no need for this thread to be so antagonistic.

Sorry. You're right. I was just coming back to tone down my comments. I was really peed off at a programming problem that I'm fighting when I read your responses.

Originally posted by russ_watters
What? It IS a fact that EVERYTHING involved in the production of that gallon of gas is included in that $1.50.

Two issues exist here:

First the soft point; this $1.50 does not represent the true cost, but I don't want to get off the main point.

Next, if we are to make a fair comparison of H2 to oil, then we must know how much of the infrastructure [in terms of energy] exists just to support the oil supply. If we can reduce the energy demand by 50% just becuase we are no longer shipping and refining oil, then we have less work to do with H2; less energy to supply. [I don't want you to get a ticket from the 2nd Law Police].

If the solution was that easy, it would already have been implimented.

I have no problem with addressing the issues, but if we dismiss an option due to assumed implicit problems, we may miss key alternatives. I didn't want to leave this open [CO₂recapture] as a likely problem, when based on what I have read in the literature, this is not the case.

Many challenges exist, but there is a difference between challenges and show stoppers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
If the solution was that easy, it would already have been implimented.

Not true. oil,oil,oil,oil,oil,oil,oil,oil,oil,oil,oil...

And you make my point exactly: It is time to begin implementing this - not all at once, not all options, not so as to turn the world's economy upside down, but as a real start. We can begin testing concepts in small test communities located in wind friendly areas right now. We can promote interest in these technologies . We can create discussions in congress about competitive strategies. We can write to our representatives. But most importantly, we need bright people to look at this and figure out how to make this work. It is now within our grasp, or nearly so, to make this change. The national H2 Association argues that the biggest hurdle is education.

By the way Russ, Senator Tom Harkin is known as Mr. Hydrogen. I am sure that he was already one of your favorites.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Time to Escape From the Grid? Wired.com

The high cost of everything from photovoltaic cells to batteries is likely to keep such home-power systems from becoming widely used any time soon, notwithstanding events such as last week's massive power failure in the Northeast and Midwest, said professor Lester Lave of Carnegie-Mellon University in Pittsburgh

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,60089,00.html

 

[LURCH]

I notice he doesn't seem to mention fuel cells. Or did I just skim over it?