Coal is not "nearly inexhaustible" - the US has 250 years of coal at current production rates, and some skeptics think that after the easiest coal is produced, coal production will become net energy negative in as little as 40 years. Even if you accept the 250 year figure, it won't last nearly that long if we call upon it to meet transportation needs as well as to meet current uses (50% of US electricity comes from coal). Turning coal into hydrogen will result in a net energy loss - it would be more efficient simply to burn the coal. Perhaps if we bring back the Stanley Steamer we might power vehicles on coal.
Hydrogen has serious problems as a vehicle fuel. It easily escapes from containment and requires very heavy "tankage" to store it as a gas. As a liquid it requires cryo-cooling, which also requires heavy tankage including cooling apparatus.
Methanol and ethanol do not suffer from these problems. Ethanol has more energy per kg than methanol and would therefore from a pure energy storage density perspective would have the edge as a vehicle fuel (though still only 2/3 the energy of gasoline). Methane also makes a reasonable vehicle fuel, although it has some of the same tankage issues as hydrogen. Propane has a lot of potential as a vehicle fuel - the tankage issue is very easily solved as propane likes to be a liquid at suitable pressure with no cryo-cooling required. Propane and methane have energy densities that are favorable when compared to gasoline, though gasoline is still better when you throw in the weight of the tankage.
Ultimately it may come down to what is easiest and cheapest to produce from biomass and electricity. We probably won't be able to produce quantities sufficient to run cars for personal transporation. But we might be able to produce enough biodiesel, ethanol, etc. to run critical things like some farm and construction equipment, emergency vehicles, etc. Personal transport will likely be bicycles or at best motor scooters.
PeakOil is You
THE Hydrogen Thread pt 3 (merged)
by OilBurner » Thu 17 Jun 2004, 11:24:55
Hithane (methane and hydrogen) will suffer from the inherent supply problems of both methane and hydrogen. Although, the individual problems are lessend as we're using two different energy forms. That is useful, as we won't need as much electricity to generate the hydrogen and not as much land for crops for pure methane. It spreads the problems quite nicely.
It's still early days though, I did a search on Google and came up with more or less nothing on it.
What really counts against it is the idea of using it as a bridge to pure hydrogen usage, we'll have to change all the infrastructure twice then!!
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but we also don't know how much of an energy loser Hithane is. It probably depends on the exact mix.
It's still early days though, I did a search on Google and came up with more or less nothing on it.
What really counts against it is the idea of using it as a bridge to pure hydrogen usage, we'll have to change all the infrastructure twice then!!
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but we also don't know how much of an energy loser Hithane is. It probably depends on the exact mix.
-
OilBurner - Lignite
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Thu 03 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: UK
by Whitecrab » Thu 17 Jun 2004, 12:57:50
If you have some time, here's a nice report from BMO (Bank of Montreal) about the difficulties in a hydrogen economy and why it won't be the power source of our generation: http://www.energyprobe.org/energyprobe/images/hydrogen.pdf
The only thing that sounds viable at all for transport is using metal hydrides to store the hydrogen:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')etal Hydrides
Powders of certain metal alloys, under certain conditions, form relatively loose chemical
bonds with hydrogen, permitting them to act as ‘sponges’ for the gas. In theory, these metal
hydrides appear to be the idea storage medium for hydrogen as they permit the storage of
relatively large volumes of gas in a relatively small volume and yet at comparatively modest
pressures (30% atmospheres or 435 psi), and with relatively good energy efficiency. For
example, certain metal hydrides store 80% or so hydrogen in the same volume as liquid
hydrogen without the associated challenges of ultra-cold temperatures.
Unfortunately, most metal hydrides are rather dense, and the weight of hydrogen stored is
only 2% of the weight of the metal hydride. Therefore, while a metal hydride storage system
capable of carrying 5 kg of hydrogen would only occupy around 90 litres, it would weigh
around 575 kg (over 1,200 pounds) not counting the pressure tank.
Hydrides based on alkali metals have considerably better energy densities, and can deliver
about 5% of the combined weight of reactants in hydrogen. In other words, 5 kg of hydrogen
could be produced from just under 100 kg of alkali hydride and water, which is a weight not
much different from that of a full fuel tank of gasoline in a small truck. Unfortunately, the
process of storing hydrogen in alkali hydrides is not very energy efficient. The process
requires around 60% more energy than that which can be extracted from the resultant hydrides.
While the efficiency of alkali hydrides storage appears to be less than that for compressed or
liquid hydrogen, this may be offset by the relatively simple storage systems required to hold
the product, and the inherent losses associated with storing cryogenic or compressed hydrogen.
Some schemes for using alkali hydride storage propose refueling by simply loading a
new set of fuel canisters, which are transported back to the manufacturers for recharging. The
change out process, which could be automated, would probably speed the refuelling process
considerably, and is one of the main drawbacks to gaseous storage.
The only thing that sounds viable at all for transport is using metal hydrides to store the hydrogen:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')etal Hydrides
Powders of certain metal alloys, under certain conditions, form relatively loose chemical
bonds with hydrogen, permitting them to act as ‘sponges’ for the gas. In theory, these metal
hydrides appear to be the idea storage medium for hydrogen as they permit the storage of
relatively large volumes of gas in a relatively small volume and yet at comparatively modest
pressures (30% atmospheres or 435 psi), and with relatively good energy efficiency. For
example, certain metal hydrides store 80% or so hydrogen in the same volume as liquid
hydrogen without the associated challenges of ultra-cold temperatures.
Unfortunately, most metal hydrides are rather dense, and the weight of hydrogen stored is
only 2% of the weight of the metal hydride. Therefore, while a metal hydride storage system
capable of carrying 5 kg of hydrogen would only occupy around 90 litres, it would weigh
around 575 kg (over 1,200 pounds) not counting the pressure tank.
Hydrides based on alkali metals have considerably better energy densities, and can deliver
about 5% of the combined weight of reactants in hydrogen. In other words, 5 kg of hydrogen
could be produced from just under 100 kg of alkali hydride and water, which is a weight not
much different from that of a full fuel tank of gasoline in a small truck. Unfortunately, the
process of storing hydrogen in alkali hydrides is not very energy efficient. The process
requires around 60% more energy than that which can be extracted from the resultant hydrides.
While the efficiency of alkali hydrides storage appears to be less than that for compressed or
liquid hydrogen, this may be offset by the relatively simple storage systems required to hold
the product, and the inherent losses associated with storing cryogenic or compressed hydrogen.
Some schemes for using alkali hydride storage propose refueling by simply loading a
new set of fuel canisters, which are transported back to the manufacturers for recharging. The
change out process, which could be automated, would probably speed the refuelling process
considerably, and is one of the main drawbacks to gaseous storage.
There's also the fact that even if solve the technical problems and get it working, can we get enough of the metal?
"Our forces are now closer to the center of Baghdad than most American commuters are to their downtown office."
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, April 2003
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, April 2003
- Whitecrab
- Lignite
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Ontario, Canada
by rowante » Fri 18 Jun 2004, 01:32:15
More on hydrogen...
Found something interesting in an essay about how nanotechnology will help with coming energy problems.
http://nanotech-now.com/IMalsch-energy-paper.htm
There is so much criticism of hydrogen by 'armchair' scientists on this site who seem to believe without question assumptions about hydrogen fuel cells and energy systems. (I'm not saying I believe hydrogen to be the answer, however, I'm saying I'm keeping an open mind because I'm not an expert in this field and would like to read more from people who are.)
Millennium Cell is a U.S. company with a new patented safe way of storing hydrogen. http://www.millenniumcell.com/index_noflash.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')The "hydrogen" is stored at ambient conditions in a non-flammable liquid "fuel" - an aqueous solution of sodium borohydride, NaBH4. Sodium borohydride is made from borax, a material that is found in substantial natural reserves globally. The process supplies pure hydrogen for energy applications without the need (and associated energy penalties) for compression or liquefaction. Hydrogen produced by this system can be used for numerous applications, addressing a wide range of power requirements.
Found something interesting in an essay about how nanotechnology will help with coming energy problems.
http://nanotech-now.com/IMalsch-energy-paper.htm
There is so much criticism of hydrogen by 'armchair' scientists on this site who seem to believe without question assumptions about hydrogen fuel cells and energy systems. (I'm not saying I believe hydrogen to be the answer, however, I'm saying I'm keeping an open mind because I'm not an expert in this field and would like to read more from people who are.)
Millennium Cell is a U.S. company with a new patented safe way of storing hydrogen. http://www.millenniumcell.com/index_noflash.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')The "hydrogen" is stored at ambient conditions in a non-flammable liquid "fuel" - an aqueous solution of sodium borohydride, NaBH4. Sodium borohydride is made from borax, a material that is found in substantial natural reserves globally. The process supplies pure hydrogen for energy applications without the need (and associated energy penalties) for compression or liquefaction. Hydrogen produced by this system can be used for numerous applications, addressing a wide range of power requirements.
It is an interesting development not addressed in the linked report in the above post. There are many problems still to be addressed (production primarily), but it puts the problem with storage and transportation of hydrogen to bed.
The important thing to keep in mind is that we do not have to have societies organised in the way it is now. Many of the inefficiencies that people take for granted now will be eliminated by circumstance in the coming decades. Just because something on the surface doesn't seem as good doesn't mean it cannot help.
Nanotechnology is something everyone should have an eye on and learn about. If there is going to be a solution it will come from this field because it is the so called 'cutting edge' of science and technology. Amazing progress and investment has occurred in this field in the last 5 years... I guess we've still got about 4-6 years for the energy fairy
Last edited by rowante on Wed 25 Aug 2004, 09:02:24, edited 1 time in total.
- rowante
- Lignite
- Posts: 244
- Joined: Tue 06 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Sydney, Australia
Talk by Dr. Ballard
by Whitecrab » Fri 18 Jun 2004, 12:44:17
I posted this on another forum I go to, the night after I went to a talk by a leading Hydrogen-for-cars engineer. Let me just paste:
(this was Feb. 2004):
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ast night I was at a lecture by Dr. Ballard, CEO of Ballard Power Systems who are giving fuel cells their damndest try. The key points of his hour long lecture (skipping the technical details) were:
(* points are the most important)
-Moving to a hydricity (hydrogen/electricity) economy lets you use a multiplicity of primary energy sources. Right now, oil HAS to be the original energy resource. By under hydricity you can generate the power any way you want, according to your country's strengths.
-There are (at least) 5 basic fuel cell models. But, I took a quick look at this chart, only about 2, maybe 3 could be used as vehicles. Some were power plant-only, if anything (run over 1000°C and has a minimum constant output).
-Hydrogen, like oil, lets you scale power and energy. So you can have a big tank and a weak engine, or a large engine and a small tank, whatever you need. This is a plus for marketing
*He doesn't believe the corner gas station is going to set up the hydrogen infrastructure. There's a catch 22: no one will make any profit setting it up without hydrogen cars to service, and no one will make cars unless there is a NETWORK. Who'll buy a car if they can only fill it up at one place?
His plan right now is to try and sell hydrogen forklifts to "big-box" companies like Walmart and Target, with gigantic shipping yards. They can do it in a way that will save money. Then, once every gigant shipping yard has a hydrogen pump, try and get a few big rig trucks to switch (2% of the vehicles in LA produce 60% of the pollution: the giant shipping trucks). Start with niche markets like that. Then, once the automakers see this network in place, they can offer cars, get Walrmart to retool the pumps for cars and sell it, and we beat the catch 22.
*In order to be economical, the technology has to drop at least an order of magnitude in price. Drop from ~$500/kW to...well most people will tell you under $50/kW, but it's really under $37. Or, to look at it another way, you need to get $0.01/kWh, and we can't do much better then $10.
He doesn't believe "economies of scale" and incrementally improving our current designs will work: if you run the numbers, you can't even buy the raw materials by the parking lot load, magically turn them into product for free, and sell them at no cost while still beating the price for the family car. You cannot put a car onto the streets of America without a totally new engine geometry: a "quantum leap" in the technology. Every major automaker in the world is trying.
-Public cars will be the last thing to get fuel cells. They've got to be proven safe. I mean, just think about recalling a 1000s of cars when you accidentally misplace a bolt on an engine or screw up a tire, even though normal cars are century-old technology. Not gonna happen for awhile
-By the third generation of technology (out kids, grandkids?), you should be able to just go home and plug you car into the grid to fuel it for the next day. Or, in a power outtage plug the car in to power your house. Or drive to the cottage, run it a week from just your car (no power lines), and drive home.
*Where will the hydrogen come from? Realistically, water cracking with nuclear power is the only way that makes sense to him. Nothing else can do it on the incredible scales needed.
-Trend prediction is usually impossible, so "you can be sure what I'm telling you will end up wrong." Life doesn't follow a linear projection
Oh, and just out of interest, he actually studied as a geological engineer and did his thesis on volcanoes, so, you never know where you'll go in this world.
(this was Feb. 2004):
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ast night I was at a lecture by Dr. Ballard, CEO of Ballard Power Systems who are giving fuel cells their damndest try. The key points of his hour long lecture (skipping the technical details) were:
(* points are the most important)
-Moving to a hydricity (hydrogen/electricity) economy lets you use a multiplicity of primary energy sources. Right now, oil HAS to be the original energy resource. By under hydricity you can generate the power any way you want, according to your country's strengths.
-There are (at least) 5 basic fuel cell models. But, I took a quick look at this chart, only about 2, maybe 3 could be used as vehicles. Some were power plant-only, if anything (run over 1000°C and has a minimum constant output).
-Hydrogen, like oil, lets you scale power and energy. So you can have a big tank and a weak engine, or a large engine and a small tank, whatever you need. This is a plus for marketing
*He doesn't believe the corner gas station is going to set up the hydrogen infrastructure. There's a catch 22: no one will make any profit setting it up without hydrogen cars to service, and no one will make cars unless there is a NETWORK. Who'll buy a car if they can only fill it up at one place?
His plan right now is to try and sell hydrogen forklifts to "big-box" companies like Walmart and Target, with gigantic shipping yards. They can do it in a way that will save money. Then, once every gigant shipping yard has a hydrogen pump, try and get a few big rig trucks to switch (2% of the vehicles in LA produce 60% of the pollution: the giant shipping trucks). Start with niche markets like that. Then, once the automakers see this network in place, they can offer cars, get Walrmart to retool the pumps for cars and sell it, and we beat the catch 22.
*In order to be economical, the technology has to drop at least an order of magnitude in price. Drop from ~$500/kW to...well most people will tell you under $50/kW, but it's really under $37. Or, to look at it another way, you need to get $0.01/kWh, and we can't do much better then $10.
He doesn't believe "economies of scale" and incrementally improving our current designs will work: if you run the numbers, you can't even buy the raw materials by the parking lot load, magically turn them into product for free, and sell them at no cost while still beating the price for the family car. You cannot put a car onto the streets of America without a totally new engine geometry: a "quantum leap" in the technology. Every major automaker in the world is trying.
-Public cars will be the last thing to get fuel cells. They've got to be proven safe. I mean, just think about recalling a 1000s of cars when you accidentally misplace a bolt on an engine or screw up a tire, even though normal cars are century-old technology. Not gonna happen for awhile
-By the third generation of technology (out kids, grandkids?), you should be able to just go home and plug you car into the grid to fuel it for the next day. Or, in a power outtage plug the car in to power your house. Or drive to the cottage, run it a week from just your car (no power lines), and drive home.
*Where will the hydrogen come from? Realistically, water cracking with nuclear power is the only way that makes sense to him. Nothing else can do it on the incredible scales needed.
-Trend prediction is usually impossible, so "you can be sure what I'm telling you will end up wrong." Life doesn't follow a linear projection
Oh, and just out of interest, he actually studied as a geological engineer and did his thesis on volcanoes, so, you never know where you'll go in this world.
"Our forces are now closer to the center of Baghdad than most American commuters are to their downtown office."
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, April 2003
--Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, April 2003
- Whitecrab
- Lignite
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Wed 26 May 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Ontario, Canada
by Aaron » Fri 18 Jun 2004, 13:37:24
Armchair science
Let's juggle the numbers
If we accept cracking seawater for hydrogen, and accept nuclear to generate the electricity to power the process then:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or example, nuclear Plant Hatch in Georgia withdraws an average of 57 million gallons per day from the Altamaha River and actually "consumes" 33 million gallons per day, lost primarily as water vapor, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Let's juggle the numbers
If we accept cracking seawater for hydrogen, and accept nuclear to generate the electricity to power the process then:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or example, nuclear Plant Hatch in Georgia withdraws an average of 57 million gallons per day from the Altamaha River and actually "consumes" 33 million gallons per day, lost primarily as water vapor, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
So if it takes 57,000,000 gallons of water per day per plant.
And we need around 5000 plants to meet electricity needs.
then 57,000,000 x 5000 x 364 = water requirements per year for nuclear.
103,740,000,000,000 gallons per year.
104 trillion gallons per year forever?
I wonder how much energy is required to move a gallon of water a given distance?
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron - Resting in Peace
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
