Is hydrogen energy truly sustainable or just a deceptive hoax?

[Ar edhel]

ok I am not bright, but hydrogen can only work if an outside energy system supplies more energy then is actually harnessed by its combustion.

in a simple closed system, if water is converted into hydrogen then back into water. it is a scientific fact the system could only loose energy. even using every ounce of hydrogen energy created, that energy would never be enough to even sustain the loop... let alone power millions and millions of cars. if you wished to extract the equivalent of 1 single battery, more then 1 battery's worth of energy would need to be expended in order to create the hydrogen equivalent. the only reason hydrogen is considered at all is because, once you have hydrogen sensless masses think wow this is great no harmful by products. and others even simpler believe they can just keep converting it back and forth as though man was able to create a perfect pendulum.

It holds many possibilities though, if it can be harnessed through natural sources like swamps. or using massively efficient factories that can convert energy from other, less user friendly sources. it is quite possible that hydrogen could be a very effective form of holding and transporting raw energy... however to create hydrogen, would the companies and government let us into the secret that they had to use up, a greater equivalent of another form of energy?

i know my grammar and spelling is weak please post any problems...

 

[Q_Goest]

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is a carrier of energy analogous to the electric power lines that criss cross the world. Hydrogen, as viewed by the "hydrogen economy" of the future, is merely a way of transporting energy from one place to another. So you're correct, it is NOT an energy source.

One issue which DOES come up as an aside from it being a transporter of energy, is the fact that if you take petroleum and convert it to gasoline for burning in an internal combustion engine, the amount of usable energy obtained is/potentially is less than that obtained from converting the petroleum to hydrogen and then using that hydrogen in a fuel cell. This is because the fuel cell is relativly efficient (~50%) compared to a car engine which can be less than half that efficient.

 

[KingNothing]

Actually, many engines are around 10-15% efficient, well less than half that.

 

[Ar edhel]

while refining petroleum into gas involves burning of impurities. i would believe adding a complete energy conversion to result in atleast a form of additional loss.

a quick question, if current engines use energy at 15% efficiency. what likely energy conversion loss should we expect? (from petroleum into hydrogen)

 

[Danger]

what likely energy conversion loss should we expect? (from petroleum into hydrogen)

Hydrogen can be used in so many ways that it's impossible to give a definitive answer to that. If you're thinking of fuel cells for an electric vehicle, the technology is advancing too rapidly to make a definite statement about what the 'state of the art' will be by the time they become commonplace. The motor and control devices will account for a lot of the efficiency, and they're getting better all of the time too.
Hydrogen, however, can also be burned in a normal (modified) engine the same way that propane and natural gas are now, but the efficiency would be higher simply because 100% of hydrogen is flammable instead of it carrying 'junk' with it into the cylinders. (Some kind of piston-ring lubricant might be needed, but that could be introduced from the oiling system.) It can be used in a turbine engine as well, or a Wankel, or a K-cycle. If you really wanted to, you could even convert it back into water and use it in a steam engine. In any event, other than the steam one, it's going to be better than hydrocarbon fuels in a reciprocating engine.

 

[krab]

Actually, many engines are around 10-15% efficient, well less than half that.

Let's not get carried away. My car gets 25% efficiency. I just calculated it from my fuel consumption rate.

 

[whozum]

Let's not get carried away. My car gets 25% efficiency. I just calculated it from my fuel consumption rate.

How would you do that?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let's not get carried away. My car gets 25% efficiency. I just calculated it from my fuel consumption rate.

What do you drive; a diesel powered auto?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

ok I am not bright, but hydrogen can only work if an outside energy system supplies more energy then is actually harnessed by its combustion.

in a simple closed system, if water is converted into hydrogen then back into water. it is a scientific fact the system could only loose energy. even using every ounce of hydrogen energy created, that energy would never be enough to even sustain the loop... let alone power millions and millions of cars. if you wished to extract the equivalent of 1 single battery, more then 1 battery's worth of energy would need to be expended in order to create the hydrogen equivalent. the only reason hydrogen is considered at all is because, once you have hydrogen sensless masses think wow this is great no harmful by products. and others even simpler believe they can just keep converting it back and forth as though man was able to create a perfect pendulum.

It holds many possibilities though, if it can be harnessed through natural sources like swamps. or using massively efficient factories that can convert energy from other, less user friendly sources. it is quite possible that hydrogen could be a very effective form of holding and transporting raw energy... however to create hydrogen, would the companies and government let us into the secret that they had to use up, a greater equivalent of another form of energy?

i know my grammar and spelling is weak please post any problems...

All about Hydrogen as an energy carrier See also the summary of all links to date near the end of the thread.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think a lot of people are completely uninformed like this guy is about the "hydrogen economy". Most of us realize that yes, it is an energy transportation method but a lot of people think that we are somehow create energy from hydrogen. Are some 'up to no good' people proliferating this idea or what?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, I think this is a simple misunderstanding caused by a lack of exposure.

 

[krab]

How would you do that?

I drive a small car (MR2); it needs to put out 20 hp to go 60mph (from car road test results). That's 11,000 ft-lb/s / 88 ft/s = 125 lb or 560 Newtons average force. Gasoline has 30.4 megajoules of energy per liter. Energy divided by force is distance, so expressing energy in liters of gasoline instead of joules, we get 55 km/l. I know that driving at a steady 60 mph, I get better than 14 km/l (that's 33 mpg in US gallons; this I know extremely well, since I have a habit of calculating mpg at EVERY fillup, and know what conditions get me what mpg.) 14/55= 25% efficiency.

 

[pervect]

I recall one speaker on CSPAN Book-TV talking about global warming. He was very emphatic that what made sense was to get rid of coal, first. The next step was increased production and usage of hybrid vehicles. Hydrogen fueled cars would be a distant third, if it made sense at all.

This is of course in sharp contrast to the current USA administration policy, which puts the "hydrogen economy" first. Anyone who takes even a brief glimpse at the current administration can judge for themselves how much the current adminsitration is driven by concern for the environment, and how much they are driven by political contributions from big businesses such as coal and power companies. A few hints:

The Enron affair, where our current president didn't feel that it was important to hear the conerns of the then California governor, as he was adaquately advised by his staff. Another broad hint comes from the dismisal of the EPA lawsuits against the power companies.

 

[Pengwuino]

No, I think this is a simple misunderstanding caused by a lack of exposure.

ah think so? I declare conspiracy! Its a ploy by the same people who filmed the faking of the moon landing out in the mojave desert! mmmm desert *homer drool*

I wonder why this stuff doesn't get much coverage though... dare i say science doesn't get a few hours on cnn? lol. Anyone know what the status is on that new power plant permit that the government issued?

 

[Pengwuino]

I recall one speaker on CSPAN Book-TV talking about global warming. He was very emphatic that what made sense was to get rid of coal, first. The next step was increased production and usage of hybrid vehicles. Hydrogen fueled cars would be a distant third, if it made sense at all.

This is of course in sharp contrast to the current USA administration policy, which puts the "hydrogen economy" first. Anyone who takes even a brief glimpse at the current administration can judge for themselves how much the current adminsitration is driven by concern for the environment, and how much they are driven by political contributions from big businesses such as coal and power companies. A few hints:

The Enron affair, where our current president didn't feel that it was important to hear the conerns of the then California governor, as he was adaquately advised by his staff. Another broad hint comes from the dismisal of the EPA lawsuits against the power companies.

Are you crazy? This administration busted Enron and Davis was a f'n criminal! He OPENLY took a bribe from... ah crap anyone know that company... it wasnt publicized much. He cooked the books and forced our state into this "rotating power outage" bull. I wouldn't have listened to that crook if my life depended on it. He was such a crook that we actually voted an austrian actor from hollywood to take his place

And the guy must be obtuse or something. Hybrid still uses gasoline and hydrogen, if created with the sources the administration wants, would be one of the cleanest means of energy use available.

 

[Danger]

No, I think this is a simple misunderstanding caused by a lack of exposure.

I have first-hand experience with the fact that some people with no scientific knowledge whatsoever, particularly those who are somewhat less than bright, think of fusion (especially bombs) when they hear the word 'hydrogen'. A lot of them don't even know that it burns. Those same people are scared of helium because they think that's what the Hindenburg was full of!

 

[pervect]

Are you crazy?

Probably. So what?

This administration busted Enron and Davis was a f'n criminal! He OPENLY took a bribe from... ah crap anyone know that company... it wasnt publicized much. He cooked the books and forced our state into this "rotating power outage" bull. I wouldn't have listened to that crook if my life depended on it. He was such a crook that we actually voted an austrian actor from hollywood to take his place

Well, I hope you're being sarcastic - real Republicans talk pretty much like you do above, except that they generally don't ever admit to being confused.

And the guy must be obtuse or something. Hybrid still uses gasoline and hydrogen, if created with the sources the administration wants, would be one of the cleanest means of energy use available.

Riiightt - Let's burn more coal in power plants, or coal gassification plants, (without any of those stinking EPA pollution controls, please!) to create hydrogen!

Now, we could make cars as fuel efficient as possible (hybrids) so they don't burn much fuel in the first place, but where's the money in that?

 

[KingNothing]

I drive a small car (MR2); it needs to put out 20 hp to go 60mph (from car road test results). That's 11,000 ft-lb/s / 88 ft/s = 125 lb or 560 Newtons average force. Gasoline has 30.4 megajoules of energy per liter. Energy divided by force is distance, so expressing energy in liters of gasoline instead of joules, we get 55 km/l. I know that driving at a steady 60 mph, I get better than 14 km/l (that's 33 mpg in US gallons; this I know extremely well, since I have a habit of calculating mpg at EVERY fillup, and know what conditions get me what mpg.) 14/55= 25% efficiency.

Krab, you are a smart guy to know how to calculate this, but honestly that is not the right approach. You admit your car gets very good gas mileage, yet you think 10 to 15% efficiency is not reasonable? Please. Most people I know do mainly city driving, and none of them drive through town, approach a stopsign, or park a car at a steady 60 mph. Driving highway speeds generally does increase efficiency, so I will have to stand by my original estimate.

 

[Ar edhel]

yes I've gathered that hydrogen burning is efficient once you have the hydrogen. though my question, what additional energy loss should we expect creating hydrogen?

 

[Danger]

what additional energy loss should we expect creating hydrogen?

To me, it seems that a ground-up approach would be the most efficient method. Build your hydrogen production facility on the ocean shore (or an island) to forego having to transport the water, and use a wave-power generator for processing.

As a side note, such facilities in 3rd World countries could also incorporate desalination equipment to provide fresh water where there's a shortage.

 

[pervect]

yes I've gathered that hydrogen burning is efficient once you have the hydrogen. though my question, what additional energy loss should we expect creating hydrogen?

As you have already guessed, you can expect fairly large losses, a point the speaker in the program I was talking about made, though I do not recall the figures at this late date.

One promising approach that was mentioned on the aforesaid program was "dual mode" hybrids. These would be hybrids that could be recharged from a power outlet as well as from the hybrid engine. For short trips, you could then have a totally electric vehicle - only trips where you exceeded the battery range would the gasoline need to be burned. This would give you all the advantages of an electric care (or a fuel cell car, or a hydrogen car) for short distances, with minimal changes in infrastructure.

 

[krab]

Krab, you are a smart guy to know how to calculate this, but honestly that is not the right approach. You admit your car gets very good gas mileage, yet you think 10 to 15% efficiency is not reasonable? Please. Most people I know do mainly city driving, and none of them drive through town, approach a stopsign, or park a car at a steady 60 mph. Driving highway speeds generally does increase efficiency, so I will have to stand by my original estimate.

If you take that approach, then the efficiency of a car is exactly zero. Consider that I drive to work and drive home again, Change in my energy state = 0. So all the energy was wasted. What I was talking about was how much of the energy in gas gets converted into useful force by the engine. Stop and go driving of course reduces fuel economy. Where is the extra energy? It heats your brakes. So you want to define efficiency your way? Then it is exactly zero.

 

[Ar edhel]

im a simpleton, but as a simple ontopic comparison, what test conditions detirmined the 50% value of hydrogen cars, and is krab's or kingnothing's a more accuratly tested comparison.

no offence to either of you but i would proally support krab, because they proally detirmined the 50% as a very biased, support of hydrogen cars.

**just uninformed, mathematically handicapped deducing
if current car combustion runs at 25% efficiency. i would guess a unified petroleum factory would achieve a probable +50%... now I am just guessing, but I am pretty sure that's prior to expending the energy breaking the water bonds. which also would not be at 100% efficiency, and prior to the 50% hydrogen usage in cars efficiency.**

im proally wrong, but i think we might be lucky to get 25%.

but just a guess...

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, I hope you're being sarcastic - real Republicans talk pretty much like you do above, except that they generally don't ever admit to being confused.

I've lived in California my entire life. I happen to know what kind of governor this guy was. I am sure you live in California too right? Because you are talking as if you know what its like to live here all your life. But wait a second, you couldn't even name the governor... how ironic.

Riiightt - Let's burn more coal in power plants, or coal gassification plants, (without any of those stinking EPA pollution controls, please!) to create hydrogen!

The United States has some of the highest levels of coal available in the world. Obviously a good source. And you must have that selective-reading disease most ideologs have that make you have a seizure when anything about nuclear power or alternative fuels comes up so you just completely ignore it when you "read" the proposal.

And why is everyone talking about efficiency so much? Isnt the point of the hydrogen economy to pull us out of a depleting-resource need and into a resource that we can simply create almost out of thin air/using a much larger supply-resource?

 

[Andre]

The efficiency of a combustion engine is limited by the Carnot cycle: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/H/He/Heat_engine.htm

Think of the adiabatic temperature difference of the gas mixture from the combustion to the end of the power stroke. That's the work done. In practice this poses a definite limit on the maximum efficiency below 50%

 

[KingNothing]

If you take that approach, then the efficiency of a car is exactly zero. Consider that I drive to work and drive home again, Change in my energy state = 0. So all the energy was wasted. What I was talking about was how much of the energy in gas gets converted into useful force by the engine. Stop and go driving of course reduces fuel economy. Where is the extra energy? It heats your brakes. So you want to define efficiency your way? Then it is exactly zero.

No, I did not mean that. All I meant to say was that most cars on the road are not as efficient as yours are. I haven't taken an auto class in HS, but one of my friend's has, and he said that most cars get around 15% efficiency.

 

[pervect]

And why is everyone talking about efficiency so much? Isnt the point of the hydrogen economy to pull us out of a depleting-resource need and into a resource that we can simply create almost out of thin air/using a much larger supply-resource?

Maybe you should ponder that question a bit (why people are worried about efficiency), and ask yourself whether energy currently actually does "come from the air", or whether with existing technology it actually comes from burning coal, oil, and a bit of uranium.

While you've got your thinking cap on, you might ask yourself about some of the other assumptions you've made in this thread :tongue:.

 

[krab]

No, I did not mean that. All I meant to say was that most cars on the road are not as efficient as yours are. I haven't taken an auto class in HS, but one of my friend's has, and he said that most cars get around 15% efficiency.

My car is very typical. But nevermind my car. You can find values for Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) at many websites. Here is one example. It appears that typical is 0.5 pounds per horsepower-hour. A horsepower-hour is 2.68 million joules. Energy density of gasoline can be found here. It's 44 Mjoules/kg, so 0.5 pounds of gasoline contains very close to 10 million joules. So you get 2.68 Mjl mechanical energy out with 10 Mjl gasoline energy in. This works out to an efficiency of 26.8%.

Look at the Holley website again. Some engines achieve 0.4 BSFC. That's an efficiency of 26.8% * .5/.4 = 33%! Now this is of course when an engine runs at optimum efficiency, but remember your first post:

Actually, many engines are around 10-15% efficient, well less than half that.

We're talking about engine efficiency of internal combustion engines; not about how people drive.

 

[Pengwuino]

Maybe you should ponder that question a bit (why people are worried about efficiency), and ask yourself whether energy currently actually does "come from the air", or whether with existing technology it actually comes from burning coal, oil, and a bit of uranium.

Obviously, energy production by oil would be minimized. We're tlaking about future plans, not what would happen if it was implimented immediately into our current system because it would take a long time and to switch to nuclear power would be the best current long term solution. Hell and again that doesn't answer why anyones talking about efficiency. We're talking about ridding ourselves of the need for a resource that will be gone soon enough, not about picking and choosing what's the most efficient use of our resources. I don't think many people can intelligently say "Well... IC engines in our cars are more efficient then hydrogen... i say we should scrap the whole hydrogen idea!".

 

[Ar edhel]

switching to nuclear power is fine, but isn't the entire point to reduce or stop ecological impact and damage?

I nominate you... i believe you diserve to run a nuclear disposale sight... maybe you can head up the neighborhood watch'

oh and ifficency is still a huge issue... would you enjoy it if your country created 200 new nuclear power plants, to create an inefficient energy expenditure?? and required 200 more to deal with the substantial losses required to produce it?

 

[Pengwuino]

Pengwuino... ok listen carefully.

hydrogen can only release the amount of energy that is put into it... this means that it takes resource energy to extract the hydrogen from water. If you want hydrogen energy... it will take more of the other resource chosen to create hydrogen, then hydrogen will yield.

it is only a transporter, you put (outside energy) into it. then it moves around and is eventually used in a car... if you could magically create energy, converting it back and forth... if you did it millions of times, you would have more then the entire univesal energy combined.

Ok ok, listen carefully.

The whole hydrogen economy's key is to use nuclear or renewable sources. This means that efficiency is irrelevant. It would make sense to talk about efficiency if we're talking about using gasoline or natural gas to create hydrogen. Obviously, if you use the same combustion generation as a car, its implied less efficiency since you throw another process is. However, renewable sources (what the 'hyrdogen' economy would also use) mean that efficiency isn't ncessary to talk about since all you have to do is build more say, solar panels or more wind turbines (however of course, you DO get to efficiency problems if you start running out of places to put either. And of course, nuclear power presents a whole lot of power for a very little mass so its not as big as an efficiency problem to warrant even trying to compare it to fossil fuel generation.

 

[Ar edhel]

Pengwuino, i concede... nuclear power yields shorterm value... this may sustain long enough to transfer over... however...

With diminishing non renewable, we must seek long term sustainable methods for producing consumable energy. if ever expended our world will face the next 10k years with little to non of the resources we enjoy today.

however, it has been a very short amount of time and already we deal with nuclear waste issues, after 100 years... to create the energy required to power countless millions of vehicles, not to mention power many resource using systems. without our current supply of non renewable, the amount of energy required to run these for just a year is astronomical.

Unless we want to keep piling nuclear waste for the next centuries to come, Nuclear power plant may provide a transition but not an ultimate solution.

As you may know, I am sure i may not... a shortage of renewable resources has more then the implication of getting to work each day. with a high price for hydrogen how many impovrished nations could sustain their energy requirments? its a grandios explenation that we build a hydrogen power plant there... with millions of solar panels, wind turbines. or a couple nuclear power plants? But this transition Is hugely expensive, the amount of energy millions of cars in one american state use daily would require is enormous. Especially from a nation that up until the end will care more about horse power then actual milage.

The plausibility of the usa sending over free hydrogen is strange and unrealistic... If the hydrogen economy kicks into gear, hydrogen will represent the same value as oil gas and petroleum... usa seems to want more, not less

Do you really think as america watch's millions starve yearly they will assist in more then a token generosity? The cost of feeding a child for 1 day is 1 dollar. How many trillions are they hoping to contribute? Do you actually believe that after amounting the vast vast resources to outfit thei own country with renewable energy they will have both the money or compasion to spend that same value on the other 4 continents? Do you understand that africa is still paying for mega projects the USA lent money to build? How successful have they been? IF America summed up the resources to outfit themselves. how happy would other nations be? The war in Iraq, how many trillions have they already spent? how far would that have gone in poor nations... guess what, they were serving themselves... and when and if they manage to outfit themselves...

guess how many osamas are going to have grudges.

Oh ps, president bush may not be bright but he's proally well advised. coal is proally the only source currently effective.


While it may not be scientific, it deals with an issue that even political views effect the very nature of the science... And sorry if I am wrong on this one (and others)

 

[Pengwuino]

Fission nuclear energy is like... well we're dealing with a different monster then what we're use to. Most issues we face is like, comparing 2 different things for a similar goal. With this, we're in a situation where we're not asking which is better, we're asking what else is there because its not like mother nature and science is providing us with hundreds of different ideas that we can pick and choose from. We're more like, facing a hundred problems and can't find 1 real answer.

We are currently capable of handling nuclear waste in a good enough manner that it will not be a problem for a while. Projects such as Yucca Mountain are a prime example of solutions that have prospects of inevitably working out for waste right now. Nuclear power teamed with solar and turbine will inevitably keep us going for at least a century if we act quickly... but we're going to at some point have to find a 'miracle' cure. At some point we need to figure out a way to create massive amounts of power, 24/7/365 to replace nuclear power plants. Some say that miracle is fusion energy... let's just hope... If we can get that to work, we'll have many many centuries until have to come up with another source. Or of course, russia goes nuts and nukes everyone and our power requiremnts become much less :D lol

As for poor nations.. that probably very well might be the answer... according to their terrain. Good thing though is that one of hte positives that come from being a poor nation is that their energy requirements are nothing compared to many developed nations so it wouldn't exactly be a mind boggling project.

I think your post spun into ideology though at this point. Why does America have to be the only one who does anything? Theres plenty of other nations that can help and there's an international organization that is suppose ot be in charge of doing this kind of stuff too. I don't know where this feeding thing is coming from or again, the idea its Americas sole duty to fix the world. And why are you asking me questions on topics I haven't even brought up? And exactly when did the Iraq war become part of the hydrogen economy? Or are you just brainwashed into thinking it was some "war for oil"? And we've spent trillions? Interesting... I did not know that... or believe it for that matter... And bashing a country that gives hte largest sum of money to poor nations isn't exactly nice. I'm sure that's exactly how you make a country give money, by denouncing them and criticizing them... I am sure that's what most starving african kids think... "lets criticize America and hope they give us more money because of it".

And i really don't think there's going to be many international terrorists born out of countries that get their rage out of the idea that they arent getting more and more and more money.

And you may think Bush is not bright, but as we're finding out, not many politicians are lol.

 

[Ar edhel]

hehe, well sorry to spin into ideology. I guess the main issue, and the ease of my challenging you, is you chose nuclear powerplants as the ultimate solution. this however may not be the case simply because they may choose a wide spectrum of energy producers, the combined total ranging from wind air water and others. may yield enough to supply.

However i doubt that the support structure will be created to provide to more then the already deemable wealthy nations... unless in small doses

im not asking people to solve hunger, only if after 100's of thousands of years of learnign to seek and attain food... if we are still un able to provide this... how likely will it be that this will be of universal benefit...

as you said... underdeveloped nations require less energy, in other words we admit to consuming the greatest share... and when/if the resources run out they still have more then half the problems.

 

[pervect]

Ok ok, listen carefully.

The whole hydrogen economy's key is to use nuclear or renewable sources. This means that efficiency is irrelevant. It would make sense to talk about efficiency if we're talking about using gasoline or natural gas to create hydrogen.

We currently get only an insignificant fraction of our power from renewable resources. Thus, with existing infrastructure, the hydrogen economy would not and cannot use renewable resources. Instead, it would just use existing resources in a manner that's likely to be less efficient. Thus the hydrogen economy currently does not make any sense.

Money spent on the hydrogen economy could MUCH be better spent on developing and encouraging the implementation of renewable resources. Of course, encouraging the use of renewable resources would piss off people who have a vested financial interests in non-renewable resources. So the hydrogen economy is basically a political ploy that has little to no actual utility.