Questions about a Hydrogen Economy; Scientific American

[russ_watters]

On this point it is argued that clean, carbon based technologies are practical on a large scale but not on a small scale.

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

Also, Methane -> H2 -> Fuel cell is now the most efficient option from source to wheels. In principle, if we could convert instantly to fossil fuel fired H2 production from methane, and then if we used this H2 in fuel cell powered cars, we would instantly require about 2% less energy in total - according the Sci American data [Edit: note that I had said 5%, the correct number is about 2.5%+-0.5% from what I can see]. Allegedly this includes the efficiency of production of the H2 as well as the efficiency of the auto; from energy source to fuel cell to wheels.

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

I completely agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

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

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also

Technical Barriers

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

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

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...solar+furnace"+efficiency+cost+problems&hl=en

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It looks like the chemical processes have some competition.

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also

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

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

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

More about this particular project:

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

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...solar+furnace"+efficiency+cost+problems&hl=en

 

[zoobyshoe]

I would imagine that the reaction chambers don't last long. Zooby, did you spot anything that describes the actual cost of operating a system like this?

Yes, the temperatures are pretty high, of course. I only found the one site that had an operational systen in place, and it is a "demonstration model" so to speak, not at work constantly producing hydrogen. They didn't go into cost.

The chamber where they dump the hot zinc into the water would probably not wear out that fast. The chamber where they heat the zinc to drive the oxygen off would suffer the most thermal stress.

I would think that there must be problems or we would be doing this on a large scale already.

I don't think the notion that if it were a good system, we would already be using it, is true. I didn't find out about this system till today, and apparently you hadn't either. This thread has pointed out that hydrogen minded people are all scattered all over the place each exploring different ways to skin the hydrogen cat. That being the case, someone like a Westinghouse who might champion one method or another, has too many choices.

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

Any byproduct that has a use is good. Any system for producing H2 that produces a byproduct that has to be gotten rid of, is, of course, a waste of time.

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

 

[russ_watters]

Consider solar panels [edit: ie. photovoltaic]. Solar technology promises to get cheap very quickly, but until now it is quite possible that the complete energy costs to produce the panels was greater than the energy recovered over the life of the panel.

Is it really that bad? For sure though, one of the toughest things to figure out in all of this is the economic implications - especially how fast/economically production of whatever new technology can be ramped up.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Is it really that bad?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Cliff_J]

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

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

Cliff

 

[zoobyshoe]

How much do the fuel cells cost?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is some information. Direct pricing seems a bit elusive since so much is still experimental. Here is one decisive statement; presumably comparing KW to KW.

Creating affordable hydrogen fuel cells: Fuel cells are now ten times more expensive than internal combustion engines. The FreedomCAR initiative is working to reduce that cost to affordable levels.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030206-2.html

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

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

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

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

Fact Sheet: Hydrogen Fuel: a Clean and Secure Energy Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks, Ivan.

That certainly pushes me toward the ICE.

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Economic Growth

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

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

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

http://www.fuelcellstore.com/

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

Sorry. That's from something posted by Cliff in another thread. I got the threads mixed up and thought you had seen it.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell Cars
Address:http://www.ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=284 Changed:1:28 AM on Tuesday, June 22, 2004

It's about halfway through this article.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

 

[hitssquad]

What is wrong with using gasoline as a hydrogen carrier

If we use this as a rule of thumb then I would expect a 10KW H2 fuel cell to cost somewhere around $5000. [This assumes that a 100HP ICE costs about $4000]

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[LURCH]

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

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

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

 

[Njorl]

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

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

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

What is the energy cost of making gasoline?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A related story that popped up today.

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

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

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

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

 

[ivarf]

M. L. Wald's article

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hitssquad]

Nuclear gasoline in your $500 engine

in order to compare costs we need to compare retail to retail.

Higher demand supports higher gas prices. When demand is high enough, it will support the price of nuclear gasoline derived from water and carbon dioxide.

Next, let me know where to get these $500 engines.

Toyota gives one away free of charge in every Corolla it sells. Just visit your local Toyota dealer for a test drive and a peak under the hood at the $500 engine. Test driver must be 21 or over and have a valid driver's license. Offer not valid where void or prohibited by law.[/size]

What is the energy cost of making gasoline?

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

Welcome to PF Ivarf.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[hitssquad]

Tire pollution negates possibility of zero emissions vehicle

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

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

Got tires?

• Although we often focus on the components of tailpipe exhaust— toxic combustion particles, benzene, formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxides and a host of other goodies — vehicles also release ... particles from paint, brake linings and tires. In addition, diesel exhaust from construction vehicles, the heat of the engines and road surface, road dust and toxic chemicals evaporating from the road surface contribute to the toxic soup, and the mass is kept suspended over the roadway and nearby neighborhoods by the continuous traffic.

.
Particulate pollution from gasoline engines is now so low, more particulate pollution is emitted from the tires than from the engine of the average currently-sold car.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

 

[Kenneth Mann]

Hydrogen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

 

[hitssquad]

Powerball.net, a hydrogen-storage technology company

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

It's a typo. Powerball.net is a hydrogen economy technology site.

• The concept behind Powerball Technologies is to tame energy, (so to speak) and to store one powerful element - sodium (or sodium hydride) - in order to later get Hydrogen on Demand.
  
  Powerball fuel pelletsTM store and produce hydrogen on demand. Each gallon of powerball fuel pellets produces hundreds of gallons of hydrogen upon contact with water on an as-needed basis. Powerball fuel pelletsTM offer a safe, compact, and inexpensive alternative to the delivery, storage and use of compressed or liquid hydrogen for a wide range of applications which require a clean source of hydrogen.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks for clearing that up, hitsquad.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

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

 

[Kenneth Mann]

NaH fuel system

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

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

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Got tires?Particulate pollution from gasoline engines is now so low, more particulate pollution is emitted from the tires than from the engine of the average currently-sold car.

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

 

[Kenneth Mann]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Kenneth Mann]

More on Powerball

There's a little bit more at:

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

 

[Kenneth Mann]

Powerball coatings

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

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

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think the covering shell for the Powerball is more than just a coating. At least as I understand, the liquid NaH is injected into the shells, hardened and then welded shut. (Actually, they describe it both as coating and injecting and welding within a two paragraph span.)

They describe it in a couple places as a "briquetting" process. The powder is mechanically compressed into the ball shape first, then the coating is added. I don't see how they could do it by injection. It seems the liquid NaH would have to be much hotter than polyethelene could withstand.

They also say that the Powerballs are then tested.

They are really only tested for airtightness. The coatings don't seem to be tested for thin spots that could be easily abraded away.

This may also be suggested by the fact that a hydraulically operated knife mechanism is needed to split open the balls, as needed in the tank. If this is true, however, it means that recycling the polyethylene shell will be somewhat more of a concern. It would suggest however, that the Powerball is at least as safe in a car/truck as a tank of gasoline.

It looks from the pictures that the balls are physically cut into two halves by the hydraulic knife. The power would be needed to cut through the compressed NaH, not the polyethelene shell.

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

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

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

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

Yes, different applications, maybe.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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

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

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Also, a significant link that was missed.

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is an example of another approach to production.

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

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

 

[revere521]

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

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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