A Hydrogen economy: Be a part of the change

[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?

 

[curro_jimenez]

general opinion

After reading the thread, the only real benefice I find with the hydrogen economy is we can produce hydrogen vehicles (at my city works an experimental bus covering a line) cleanest that the oil ones. It’s a very good thing, because the oil combustion is the first cause of pollution in cities.

But, in my opinion, it remains the problem of production. We need energy to produce any form of packaged hydrogen. So, we must to return to the traditional energy production sources (oil, coil, nuclear, wind ...).

Use ecological sources to produce hydrogen has the same problems that use it to produce electricity: solar is not very much efficient and needs appropriate weather and large surfaces, wind works only at special places and has some other ecological problems (protected birds deaths) and so on. That’s the reason why now oil burning and nuclear are the firsts choices, generally.

And about the descentralization, right now every person has some possibilities to produce energy (electricity) at home. So, ¿where is the advantage with the hydrogen?.

I admit it could be advantages storing energy, but we should compare efficiencies with other methods used today.

Resuming, I agree with some of the advantages of the hydrogen but I don’t think the complete picture of the hydrogen economy was reasonable.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The hydrogen economy blasts off

As fuel-cell buses take to the streets in Iceland, the idea of an economy based on hydrogen rather than fossil fuels is being taken more seriously, as Tim Chapman discovers

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/15/7/10/1


First two myths about renewable energy need to be dispelled

Hydrogen production from coal-bed methane and natural gas is a promising option, for example (the CO2 by-product being used for the enhanced recovery of oil or coal-bed methane on a non-net-carbon-emitting cycle)

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/14/6/2/2



Fuel cells: environmental friend or foe?
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/7/6/10/1



More on fuel cells

Although fuel cells use hydrogen as a fuel, hydrogen could be obtained from fossil fuels by steam reforming or partial oxidation. Of course, the emissions from fuel cells include those from the fuel-manufacturing stage, and therefore depend on the particular fuel and the method used to provide the hydrogen. Fuel-cell power stations could still use fossil fuels, and such stations could be introduced either as part of a central generating system or as small CHP systems dedicated to particular ...

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/11/7/2/1

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Iceland debuts the world's first retail hydrogen station

This tiny North Atlantic country may be the perfect test bed for a national hydrogen-based economy. Its small population—about 279,000—means fewer infrastructure hurdles: The conversion of just 45 gas stations spread along the country's main highway could feasibly service 13,500 hydrogen-fueled vehicles

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/auto/article/0,12543,477240,00.html

 

[LURCH]

I already mentioned this in the "Nuclear Engineering" Forum, but an article in the last months Popular Science said that the next generation of nuclear power plants will have (in addition to safer containment facilities) the side benefit of producing hydrogen fuel. The leading contender for the next DOE contract is projecting production levels of 10 tons per hour.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Time to escape the grid?

Well...

[from the article] The rub is that such systems can cost up to $60,000 for a typical home...

Not even close to being economically viable. A home with electric heat might use $2,400 / year. 25 year payback. To really be economically viable, the payback neds to be at most half that.

However, I have said before I am in favor of tax incentives to help make it economically viable.

After reading the thread, the only real benefice I find with the hydrogen economy is we can produce hydrogen vehicles (at my city works an experimental bus covering a line) cleanest that the oil ones. It’s a very good thing, because the oil combustion is the first cause of pollution in cities.

Gas might be the leading cause of air pollution in cities, but overall, the leading cause of air pollution in the COUNTRY is coal electric power. Hydrogen cars would shift the pollution to the power plants, causing a net INCREASE in the air pollution output of the country.

A few items for you, Ivan: In that myths about renewable energy thing, is the myth that hydrogen is renewable? If not, it should be - when you derive hydrogen from a non-renewable source like a fossil fuel, then the hydrogen is not renewable. Worse, the part they don't tell you is since you start with oil or natural gas, the final combustion products, no matter how they are produced, are the SAME as if you just burned the oil or natural gas in the first place. Extracting hydrogen to burn clean later just produces all of bad products first.

Iceland is an aberration that really doesn't help us (or anyone else) as an energy infrastructure model. They get most of their power from geothermal sources, so they are not faced with the same issues the rest of the world is.

 

[wasteofo2]

DAMNIT! Someone stole and modified one of my world changing life goals!

My original plan was better anyway, fill your car with water, have a process that separates the water into oxygen and hydrogen(we did this in 8th grade science class, so it can't be that hard to put into a machine), then use both the hydrogen and oxygen for fuel.

Oh well, this clears up some time to work on creating a virus which will somehow incorporate chlorophyll or chloroplast into human skin cells and thus end world hunger through greeness.

 

[Inverselepton]

You Can Eat Lasers

http://cgi6.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewSellersOtherItems&userid=halbizon&include=0&since=-1&sort=3&rows=50

 

[Allah]

why

Why must we transition to H2?

Global warming? No, There isn't any evidence that it is even happening on Earth in the manner in which you mean.

Dependence on Foreign Distributors? Yes, but that is self induced. If the liberals would allow us to drill, then the dependence would naturally decrease.

Desire? No, there isn't any demand if you get seen in a pug fugly car everyday.

Dwindling supplies? NO, there is AN INSANE AMOUNT OF OIL. The only problem is getting to it. For example, in the late 19th century, Oil was thought ONLY TO EXIST ON THE EAST COAST OF THE US! Then some crazy guy went to TEXAS and found oil! The estimate on how long the supply of oil will last is always INCREASING because we can drill deeper and in places never before IMAGINED. 100 years ago, you would have literally been stoned to death if you suggested that we should have these platforms at sea to drill for oil.

Are you still not convinced? The current estimate i think for Fossil fuels is 200 years. In 200 years, I doubt that cars will even exist, but if they do, then we still have Titan, a moon with something close to a natural gas atmosphere and oceans, which would power the human race for centuries. Additionally, if there are more Titan like planets in other systems, well then we don't have a problem.

This H2 BS is simply alarmist propaganda. Why must we spend all this money and time for something that won't last? I say down with h2. Divert all those resources to space.

What is this "placating the oil companies?"
I thought JK said that if there was a secret deal with Saudi Arabia then impeachment proceedings should begin.
Then he said that if there was not a secret deal that GWB should have made one to curb gas prices.
And he seems to disregard that if he had his way that gas would cost even more.

And BTW JK's foreign policy includes compromising US interests at the UN, then subordinating the US foreign policy to the UN. I hate to break it to you, but the UN is historically inept with a few exceptions.

 

[racprops]

OK like wasteofo2 said, has anyone seen those web sites that offer a plans on how to build a water spiting system that take water and give you Ox and Hydrogen right at the motor??

Sure you may need two alternators to drive and I think if what I have read about the power out put of a gas engine running on Hydrogen is correct at about 50% of the power, I think a operational gasoline system to boost the hydrogen would be the best of both worlds.

Your dual tanks carries water and gas, (Put them side by side and a crash might just cause the water to wash down the gas and help prevent any fires…could be super safe) and you crack the water at the engine and get almost enough to run the engine, specially at cruse…the gasoline system would be use mainly to start and for the times you need more power and the hydrogen for steady driving…

So what is wrong with these ideas?

Rich

 

[chroot]

It takes exactly as much energy to split the water into oxygen and hydrogen as the engine gets back from their combustion, racprops. There is no point to your design.

- Warren

 

[racprops]

Are you sure? Granted driving two alternators at full load would add some drag, but a engine make so much power out of gas I would think it would work, and after all distilled water can be bought for about $.75 per gal.

So how much Hydrogen would it take to drive a car down the road and how much power can you get out of Hydrogen?

So how much water would have to be cracked at what rate to give cursing power?

Rich

 

[russ_watters]

Are you sure? Granted driving two alternators at full load would add some drag, but a engine make so much power out of gas I would think it would work, and after all distilled water can be bought for about $.75 per gal.

So how much Hydrogen would it take to drive a car down the road and how much power can you get out of Hydrogen?

So how much water would have to be cracked at what rate to give cursing power?

Rich

I think you missed warren's point: While there is significantly more energy capacity in water than in gasoline, its like an empty battery: you have to put the energy in before you can use it.

You're talking about splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen, then using the hydrogen and oxygen to power the car. Where is the energy coming from to split the water? You cannot get it from burning the hydrogen, because the reaction is symmetrical:

H2O+E<->H2+O2

The "E" is the same whether the reaction moves from right to left or left to right.

 

[chroot]

Um, yes, racprops. I'm sure.

- Warren

 

[racprops]

OK Then check this out:

http://www.truth777.netfirms.com/Conspiracy/carwater.htm

So what is wrong with this?

Rich

 

[racprops]

I started a new thread at:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=363739#post363739

Calle: Running a Car on Hydorgen Made From Water.

This is my post, just in case some of you still check in on this old thread, which I fear has run out of gas...

Rich

OK I dead serious about this.

Please check this out:

http://www.truth777.netfirms.com/Co...cy/carwater.htm

So what is wrong with this? Is there anything wrong with this plan?

Can or will it work??

If it will not work, can it be fixed? Like what is wrong with it?

I guess the main questions are: (Assuming it really works!)

How much Hydrogen and Oxygen will such a system put out? In volume over time, in other words will it make enough (volume) fast enough (time) to fill the needs of a 350 Chevy motor?

How much would it take to drive a Chevy 350 motor? (Hope some of you know or can find out how much volume of fuel and air a 350 needs.)

Can you match the output to the needs of the 350? Like would it take one or two or more gas generators to feed the 350, and how much current will it take to run those gas generators?

And lastly how much water?? Like what will you think the water/gas mileage will be??

And to figure that out we need to know how much power the mix of Hydrogen and Oxygen this makes will produce in a combustion chamber??

This looks too damm simple and too damm fantastic, and IF it is one of those nutty ideas that everyone dismissed as being all the above, and really works, HOT DAMM what it would mean, a cheap way to power cars, Hydrogen on demand, no 30,0000 pound storage tanks, no refueling stations, and no explosive fuel on board, only water.

And a clean exhaust to boot, I believe it’s by product is air and water?

And yes I know it will make water as a by product and will rust the engine and exhaust system…but if it worked, then special systems like a oiler for the cylinder heads and combustion chambers and stainless steel values and tail pipes will solve most of those problems.

In my case I plan or running a little gasoline with the system and to shut it off and finish the last mile or so home (or to my stop) with pure gasoline to flush the engine.

Could the answer be this simple?

Rich

 

[russ_watters]

OK Then check this out:

http://www.truth777.netfirms.com/Conspiracy/carwater.htm

So what is wrong with this?

We just told you what was wrong with that!

 

[racprops]

No not really, not just because you say it.


I understand that there is no free lunch.

And I believe you when you say that I cannot suck up the water from the exhaust and use it to run the motor, which I never said.

And I understand to run such a device will mean the alternator will load the motor, but I have seen a alternator load at 60 amps and could hardly feel the drag. (Had a amp gauge and low battery)

A company in Canada is using their converter to help the trucks burn their fuel, as a booster. I personally would not care to bilk a large truck company whom has the deep pockets to sue. I would do what most scammers are doing bilk the general public.

I can see most of the gas mileage add on devices are total bunk and junk, but it is funny how the auto makers have added swirl effects to Chevy heads, (the Torvec Motors) kind of like the Tornado Air intake device.

I found a site where people were adding propane to their intakes.

Not for mileage but to get more Horse Power, at a site for Turbo Buick Drivers where adding propane added to their top end and allow more boost.

I then found a site where I can get a system to add a little propane to my gas full time to boost the burn and power and thus gas mileage.

And with propane costing around $1.00 locally and that the rate is 5 gals of propane to 20 gals of gas looks like a very cost wise system, and it helps clean the motor as well.

I have heard over and over that one reason even old cars get worst mileage that they used to is the type of gas we currently get, and that the Hot Vapors system no longer work because of the changes to the gas, so anything that will help gas burn better I feel is a good idea.

I will have to do a little work and build one of the Hydrogen and Oxygen generators and see for myself. I do not believe it will replace my gas system, but anything that can help the gas system and cut my use of pure Gasoline I feel will be a cost saving.

And so what if it loads the motor at cruse I still think the power boost will out power the drag of the alternator, even at full load. Running a mix of gasoline adn the output of the H&O System. For full power, I will simply set it up to cut out when I go pass ¾ power to allow the gas system to power the motor.

And yes I have read the postings, No one has said that a 350 needs X amount air and fuel, and that a 100 AMP Alternator will draw X amount of House Power and that the H&O generator will produce X amount of H&O and need X amount of current at 12 volts to produce X amount of H&O. All I keep seeing is it will not work, no proof.

No one has said that X amount of H&O will make X amount of power. No one has said that mixing it with gasoline will produce X result. Good or bad.

All seem to have a knee jerk reaction, It Can Not Work.

Gasoline should not work, it is a liquid that burns…. And in fact it has to be vaporized to work. Propane is a gas that burns and so is Hydrogen and Oxygen and even in small amounts should produce added power in a motor.

It is a fact that of all my motors power, only about 20/30% is needed to cruse done the road, which is why they are again trying to shut off 1/2 of a motor with the DOD motors.

So again I would like to see numbers, real numbers.

Sorry I am a bit pig headed, too many things have beed said "Will not work!"
Man can not fly, etc.

Rich

 

[kuba]

H2 is less of a bomb than gas in your tank

It should not be forgotten that H2, whether stored as a pressurized gas or as a cryo liquid, is still inherently safer than gasoline. In case of tank explosion, it will be just as violent as gasoline is. In case of a fire though, you get a nice vertical plume as H2 is lighter than air. In case of gasoline, it just spreads all over your car.

 

[kuba]

> And so what if it loads the motor at cruse I still think the power boost will out power the drag
> of the alternator, even at full load.

Well, you think wrong :)

Cheers, Kuba

 

[Chronos]

Hydrogen electrolyis is not a bad idea. It is not 'free energy', but it gives back a very respectable return on investment [around 50%, math available on request]. There is, however, the option of harnessing solar energy to power the input [which is as near a thing to free energy as is available]. While direct use of solar energy would be more efficient, it is not the kind of 'power on demand' required to meet human demands. I do object to playing down the dangers of hydrogen compared to fossil fuels. It would need to be stored in compressed form to be practical. A compressed gas cylinder is NOT safer in a fire than an uncompressed tank full of gasoline.