What happened to fuel-cell technology?

[mfb]

The plastic tank is safer than hydrogen under pressure. It won't explode (as we are not in a movie). A burning car is bad, but an exploding car is worse.

 

[mheslep]

Folks far removed from the energy industry generally don't grasp the scale.

The world uses around a cubic mile of oil per year.
...

From http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/fossil-fuels/joules-btus-quadslets-call-the-whole-thing-off


So start today building a hundred windmills every day.
At end of fifty years, if they last that long, you'd have built enough (about 1.6 million) that you could shut off the oil spigot. Well for today's usage anyway (actually 2006's).
But the first half million you built will be getting might rickety by then...
And that's a technology problem not a political one.

50 nuclear power plants built per year.

1 cubic mile of oil (the type is not relevant here) per year corresponds to ~6TW, that is the electricity output of roughly 6000 reactor blocks.

Furthermore it takes a few thousand plants not fifty.
Authors of that article were trying to show what a momentous project it will be to get us independent of oil in even fifty years -

mfb's 6 terawatts is 6000 gigawatts, and the biggest nuke I know of is about 1.2 gigawatts.
The one I retired from was a dual unit, each ~ 3/4 of a gigawatt.
So it'd be five or six thousand big of nukes, and to build enough of them in fifty years would be one or two per week.

Just like the windmills - you'd have to build a big nuke or two every week for fifty years...

The cubic mile of oil (CMO) per year is 1.6*10^20 joules/year, or a bit over 5 TW. Now that's primary energy, about 80% of which goes out the metaphorical tail pipe of the transportation sector it overwhelmingly supplies - more still if the in-the-loop refining overhead is included (10-15%). So the useful power from oil, i.e. that which would be replaced, coming from that CMO/yr is more like 1 TW.

The graphic would also better compare like to like if the reference was made to the size of the existing global capacity in each case.

For nuclear, the world installed base is about 430 reactors. To replace the useful oil consumption, another 1000 1GWe reactors are required, or a more than tripling of the existing global fleet. In the 1980's, global reactor construction peaked at ohttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Current-and-Future-Generation/Plans-For-New-Reactors-Worldwide/#.UlVvtVCUSmw At that pace 1000 reactors require a 10 year pipeline, plus the construction period for a plant, and a bit more still for replacements.

Global installed wind capacity as of 2011 was 282 GWpeak or about 90 GW avg. A TW of average wind power would require a ten fold increase of global capacity. The current rate of construction is ~ 45 GWpeak (14 GW avg) per year, requiring ~70 years at that rate to install a TW.

The oil industry hashttp://www.worldoil.com/February-2012-US-oil-well-counts-rise-in-all-regions.html, with, what, maybe 2 million wells worldwide; there must be global refining capacity of 80-100 million bbls/day globally, shipping to carry a ~quarter of that, and miles of pipeline that likely would reach the moon, and back, if so extended.

 

[mfb]

The cubic mile of oil (CMO) per year is 1.6*10^20 joules/year, or a bit over 5 TW. Now that's primary energy, about 80% of which goes out the metaphorical tail pipe of the transportation sector it overwhelmingly supplies - more still if the in-the-loop refining overhead is included (10-15%). So the useful power from oil, i.e. that which would be replaced, coming from that CMO/yr is more like 1 TW.

You cannot stop transporting things. If you just replace the power plants, you still burn 80% of the fuel of today (plus something to account for the increasing demand for transportation).

 

[rogerk8]

Might not the difference be that hydrogen does not pollute the air?

 

[mfb]

Hydrogen is nothing you can just find underground, you have to produce it - this needs oil, electric energy or more research in biological production to be efficient.

 

[Integral]

Wind plants require a LOT of concrete, due to this they start with a CO₂ deposit that takes years to climb out of.

 

[rogerk8]

My idea was originally to make all those wind-mills that already are placed near the sea to produce hydrogen via electrolysis instead of electrical power (while they are so inefficient anyway).

I have however understood that those wind-mills will not suffice for my vision of future need for hydrogensubstitution of oil. This was naive in the first place.

With the aid of nuclear plants my vision however holds. I say that we should build as many nuclear plants as we can while waiting for fusion power to work. Which it will. There's no doubt in my mind.

Please keep in mind that there is such things as transmutation reactors http://www.frc.gatech.edu/Transmutation-Reactors.html that actually can make nuclear waste less hazardous.

Because let's face it, I read somewhere that China builds one coal plant every week. I can bet that they do not filter the exhaust whatsoever.

But that's China, right? Wrong, we only have one atmosphere!

And we can't demand that China, like all other developing coutries, may not become industrialized like we are, right?

So what to do? The way we are living right now simply do not hold in the long run. And the generations to come will suffer from our lack of responsibility if we don't do anything about it!

Roger
PS
I say that right now the only sensible power source is nuclear plants. And regarding the transportation sector I really hope for fuel cells.

 

[mheslep]

You cannot stop transporting things. If you just replace the power plants, you still burn 80% of the fuel of today (plus something to account for the increasing demand for transportation).

I recognize that, as a practical matter, the current transportation system is overwhelmingly dependent on liquid fuels.

However the OP referenced an article that implies replacement of oil is ruled out not by practicality and economics but on the physics of the energy tally. The article implies nuclear power (among other alternatives) is inadequate to the task. In so doing that (http://spectrum.ieee.org/images/jan07/images/ncmo01.gif) article goes too far. First, it erroneously compares primary and secondary energy. Second, it misleads in comparing the production of the global oil industry to a different, piecemeal standard for alternatives.

Finally, if the argument is to be a theoretical one of counting joules as per the IEEE article , then there's little or nothing physically intrinsic to transportation that can not also be accomplished by, say, nuclear power plants charging batteries or synthesizing methane, etc, etc.

 

[mfb]

Finally, if the argument is to be a theoretical one of counting joules as per the IEEE article , then there's little or nothing physically intrinsic to transportation that can not also be accomplished by, say, nuclear power plants charging batteries or synthesizing methane, etc, etc.

I think that is the idea. And you would need a lot of power plants to do so. Sure, batteries plus electric motors are more efficient than current cars (as the power plants are rated by their electric output, as far as I see), but that does not change the main conclusion.

 

[SteamKing]

My idea was originally to make all those wind-mills that already are placed near the sea to produce hydrogen via electrolysis instead of electrical power (while they are so inefficient anyway).

The problem with electrolyzing seawater is that you can't just split the water molecules apart. You also split the salts apart (primarily sodium chloride), which makes for some nasty waste products. If you want to avoid this unfortunate outcome, you have to purify the seawater first, which adds a lot of additional energy input into the process.

 

[mheslep]

I think that is the idea. And you would need a lot of power plants to do so. Sure, batteries plus electric motors are more efficient than current cars (as the power plants are rated by their electric output, as far as I see), but that does not change the main conclusion.

The IEEE article didn't make a concise conclusion. Instead the article implied a conclusion based on some hand waiving and a faulty comparison (inputs to outputs): a 'cubic mile' of oil is a huge iconic irreplaceable figure requiring some unreachable number of power plants ("a lot" if you like) so move along, can not be done, nothing more to discuss.

As established, most oil use, especially in the US, goes to transportation. US miles driven is 3.1x10^12. Replacing all of it with an all electric fleet at 300 Wh/mile requires 106 GW average power delivered, or ~112 GW generated at the bus bar before transmission. The US has at least twice that much average power plant capacity idled, today. Or, if you like, don't use the idled capacity and double the number of US nuclear plants.

Building another hundred plus US nuclear capacity might be politically difficult, impossible, etc, which is certainly arguable. But one can not argue the required nuclear plants are physically untenable, as IEEE implies, since visibly that fleet has been built once already with 1970's technology.

 

[mheslep]

The problem with electrolyzing seawater is that you can't just split the water molecules apart. You also split the salts apart (primarily sodium chloride), which makes for some nasty waste products. If you want to avoid this unfortunate outcome, you have to purify the seawater first, which adds a lot of additional energy input into the process.

Though a small fraction of the current fresh water withdrawal (<<1%) would suffice to generate sufficient hydrogen to replace oil (joule for joule), not that hydrogen, as is, would be a practical substitute for current liquid fuels.

 

[mheslep]

Wind plants require a LOT of concrete, due to this they start with a CO₂ deposit that takes years to climb out of.

Years? Apparently a common 1.5 MW turbine requires http://windsystemsmag.com/article/detail/48/concrete-proof-the-majestic-wind-farm for its foundation, which at ~400 lbs CO2 per yd³ of concrete is ~60 tons of CO2 per turbine.

The power from a common coal plant produces 8.5 thousand tons of CO2 per MW per year (3.5x10⁶ tons/year/600MW @69% capacity factor). If the wind turbine is used to displace coal power, a 1.5 MW turbine at 30% capacity factor displaces ~4 thousand tons-CO2 per year, i.e., the turbine pays off its 60 ton CO2-from-cement debt in 6 days of operation.

 

[rogerk8]

The problem with electrolyzing seawater is that you can't just split the water molecules apart. You also split the salts apart (primarily sodium chloride), which makes for some nasty waste products. If you want to avoid this unfortunate outcome, you have to purify the seawater first, which adds a lot of additional energy input into the process.

Interesting but then you could use part of the wind-mill power or the nuclear plants to purify the water first.

 

[mheslep]

The plastic tank is safer than hydrogen under pressure. It won't explode (as we are not in a movie). A burning car is bad, but an exploding car is worse.

I missed this earlier. A gasoline tank won't explode? You mean it won't explode from pressure as would a structurally failed 3000 psi tank (with whatever inside)? Yes I recognize gasoline needs to be vapor and mixed w/ O2 to explode (as does H2), but there's no need for movie fiction to demonstrate exploding gasoline tanks.

 

[russ_watters]

Car fires are rare enough - I'm not sure I've ever heard of a car explosion happening in real life.

 

[mheslep]

Car fires are rare enough - I'm not sure I've ever heard of a car explosion happening in real life.

http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-statistics/the-us-fire-problem/highway-vehicle-fires in the US. Used to be half a million decades ago.

 

[UltrafastPED]

http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-statistics/the-us-fire-problem/highway-vehicle-fires in the US. Used to be half a million decades ago.

Keep clicking and you find the breakdown by cause:
http://www.nfpa.org/~/media/Files/Research/Fact sheets/vehiclefactsheet.pdf

Only 3% are due to collisions; 5% are due to other fires; 8% are intentional.

That leaves 72% due to mechanical or electrical failures/malfunctions.

And then there is the Tesla ... three complete burnouts in the last few months.

 

[mfb]

And mechaniccal/electrical failures and malfunctions are usually not in the gasoline tank.
Sure, if a tank gets damaged, and there is a fire, this is really bad (but still without an exploding tank). Well, in that case hydrogen is not better.

 

[mheslep]

Keep clicking and you find the breakdown by cause:
...

The only relevant point would be fires that did not involve the fuel tank, regardless of the cause. Other components might burn, but no fuel tank, no gasoline/diesel fire.

 

[mheslep]

(but still without an exploding tank).

No explosion based on what? Sure explosions are over dramatized in movies but that does not mean gasoline vapors in or escaping from a tank can not explode.

 

[mfb]

There is a huge difference between a small amount of fuel leaking somewhere and burning or exploding, and a full tank of gasoline exploding.

Anyway... you are claiming that something is possible (exploding cars without additional explosives or extremely special circumstances), please find a reference for that.

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.nfpa.org/research/fire-statistics/the-us-fire-problem/highway-vehicle-fires in the US. Used to be half a million decades ago.

Without knowing how many accidents there are a year, I cat say if that is rare or not, but it is more than I expected. Still, as pointed out, that wasn't the claim you should be sourcing.

Mythbusters did an episode on this. Their results indicate explosions are near impossible.

 

[mheslep]

There is a huge difference between a small amount of fuel leaking somewhere and burning or exploding, and a full tank of gasoline exploding.

I don't assert that 100% of a gasoline tank would explode. Heck it is hard enough to achieve perfect combustion in a cylinder designed for combustion. I don't think any flammable will completely explode unless it is somehow premixed with oxygen, and that goes for H2 as well. What I do expect is that whatever small amount gasoline vapor exists above the liquid fuel will ignite and burn rapidly given an opportunity, leading likely to more spillage of liquid fuel which will also burn if more slowly. Does that assumption require a source?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgOxWPGsJNY

A few years ago somebody did a comparison of an H2 versus a gasoline based car fire, short description here:
http://www.hydrogenandfuelcellsafety.info/resources/Swain-H2-Car-Video-Description.pdf
Photos in the appendix.

 

[mfb]

Does that assumption require a source?

It does:

Mythbusters did an episode on this. Their results indicate explosions are near impossible.

The results indicate even more: An open tank can continue to burn, but the fire does not get larger.

 

[mheslep]

It does:

The results indicate even more: An open tank can continue to burn, but the fire does not get larger.

All I'm claiming is that fire damage can occur on the order of the video I provided above, how 'explosive' that may be I have no idea, and doesn't matter much with respect to the assertion that started this discussion, "The plastic tank is safer than hydrogen under pressure. It won't explode (as we are not in a movie). A burning car is bad, but an exploding car is worse." As far as I can tell that statement is dogma.

 

[mfb]

All I'm claiming is that fire damage can occur on the order of the video I provided above, how 'explosive' that may be I have no idea, and doesn't matter much with respect to the assertion that started this discussion, "The plastic tank is safer than hydrogen under pressure. It won't explode (as we are not in a movie). A burning car is bad, but an exploding car is worse." As far as I can tell that statement is dogma.

That's a burning car, it is not an explosion.

Anyway, this discussion gets pointless.

 

[Astronuc]

I witnessed a fire in a pickup truck near my home. The first started small, then grew. At some point, the fuel must have ruptured because there was a poof (not a bang) and a big fire ball, followed by a huge fire. It seemed like a low grade explosion, but the truck itself did not explode or even move.

Fires and explosions are concerns for liquid fuel srorage/transport systems, and designers try to design storage tanks such that they do not explode. Vents and pressure relief valves are one way to mitigate vessel rupture or explosion. For explosive vapors, care must be taken to combust them or recycle them to avoid uncontrolled combutsion.

 

[OmCheeto]

Does anyone know where I can purchase a 1kw hydrogen fuel cell at the DOE price of $47/kw?

The only one I've found online costs $5685!

I have more experiments to do, in the not too distant future.

 

[etudiant]

Does anyone know where I can purchase a 1kw hydrogen fuel cell at the DOE price of $47/kw?

The only one I've found online costs $5685!

I have more experiments to do, in the not too distant future.

The DOE did qualify that to be $47/kW for an 80kW cell in volume production of 500,000 units/yr.
So you may be looking for some extended period.

I'll take several, please, when you find them.