patrick.net

I thought hydrogen vehicles were roving IEDs?

anonymous: where the heck are the hydrogen plants you set up?

John Bailo says

Having dealt with so many trolls and naysayer (who also seem to appear within the minute of any pro-Hydrogen blog post or comment even) I have to think that I am correct in that this is a perfectly workable technology, one that is being held back only by the people whose ox is about to get gored.

For you, what is the purpose of hydrogen technology?

1. Hydrogen is not a clean fuel because it does not come from underground wells. It must be chemically produced from water, hydrocarbons, or some other hydrogen containing molecule. Typically this involves the release of CO2 or expensive energy input.

2. Hydrogen is difficult to store, although that point is beat to death.

3. Now that we are willing to pay $4 a gallon for gasoline, we have "unearthed" new technologies that will allow us to go beyond 2050 (some previous estimates of the end of oil). Therefore, the impetus is no longer here to switch fuel sources.

This post sounds like a troll, I understand. But I'm actually simply asking why you think the switch to H2 is needed/useful...in a civil tone (even though I stated my counterarguments already;-))

Of course, it's a workable technology, but moving 300 million people (or some fraction thereof) to this technology will be difficult and must be justified strongly.

If I have said it once, I can say it again: (snip from old post)

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is just a VERY INEFFICIENT energy storage medium.

Using hydrogen as fuel for cars does not make any sense, and is bad for mankind and the environment, because it wastes energy on manufacturing, compressing, transporting and storing hydrogen. The energy going into making hydrogen can be better used DIRECTLY in cars. For example, using hydrogen made from steam-reformed natural gas, or made from electricity and water (through electrolysis), expends more energy for the same amount of usable resultant energy than does just using the natgas or electricity directly in vehicles.

For details read the paper http://www.fuelcellforum.com/reports/E13.pdf

UPDATE: The link above is down. New link that works in 2014: http://ebookbrowsee.net/efcf-pdf-d61218975

justme says

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is just a VERY INEFFICIENT energy storage medium.

It's actually an extremely efficient energy carrier. ...once it is created... However, getting energy into hydrogen form is inefficient, yes, as you have described several energy-wasting steps.

I will uphold the statement that H2 is an inefficient storage medium, because of all the energy losses intrinsic to H2 production.

I agree also that once you have H2, it is an "efficient" carrier in terms of energy/mass, but not so much energy/volume And definitely not in terms of energy(out)/energy(in), compared to using the input energy (natgas, electricity) directly.

justme says

I will uphold the statement that H2 is an inefficient storage medium, because of all the energy losses intrinsic to H2 production.

Fair enough

justme says

I agree also that once you have H2, it is an "efficient" carrier in terms of energy/mass, but not so much energy/volume And definitely not in terms of energy(out)/energy(in), compared to using the input energy (natgas, electricity) directly

If we talk about the hydrogen molecule itself, it's incredibly efficient. No waste. (energy/mass) But if we bring compression into the argument (and the fact that it's a gas and therefore very non-dense), then yes the energy per volume is poor. So we have to compress the hell out of it. And that costs energy. H2 is riddled with catch-22's. We need a liquid fuel that carries H2. That's my job :-)

JH, we're on the same page :-).

justme says

JH, we're on the same page :-).

Well, then, that doesn't make for a very exciting thread does it... ;-)

You never answered my original question, but okay.

John Bailo says

Old argument. It's not that big a percent of the energy.

Gravity is an old argument, but it's still gravity.

Compression from 20 to 5,000 psi costs at least $0.50 of gasoline. No individual cost is excessive, which is why we can consider it. However, these little costs add up as justme listed... H2 is no more efficient (overall) and no cheaper which is why I asked my original question.

John Bailo says

JH says

Compression from 20 to 5,000 psi costs at least $0.50 of gasoline.

Please document (with a recent study or link).

Google the energy required (4kWh) to compress 4 kg of H2 from 20 to 5,000 psi (5,000 being FCX tank pressure and 4 kg being the capacity), then google how much gasoline is required to produce that same kWh. (~0.10 to 0.15 gallon). Or use your favorite form of electricity. Then drive past a gas station and do the math.

John Bailo says

justme says

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it is just a VERY INEFFICIENT energy storage medium.

Hydrogen is the same "energy carrier" that is part of HYDRO-carbons.

In that sense, gasoline, coal, natural gas -- are hydrogen carriers!

Jeez, you really don't understand much about science. I don't get how posting a pretty graphic of a methane molecule makes the point that hydrogen gas (H2) is an efficient energy storage medium. The point others are trying to make is that it's not even that. We would be better served to put the research dollars into developing a better battery or super capacitor than putting hydrogen fueling stations all over California. The super capacitor angle is just now being explored, and shows mighty potential. Imagine a "battery" as big as a D cell that can power your laptop for a week, your phone for a month, and recharges in 30 seconds. Why would we need hydrogen cars if we could drive electric ones that came with a good driving range? And recharged in under a minute? Really, why?
This hydrogen craze will be one big expensive boondoggle that never helps anyone do anything except waste money.

Personally I like Dimethyl Ether (DME) as a fuel.

http://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/06/10/volvo-heavy-trucks-will-use-dimethyl-ether-fuel/

Positives:
* Its made from now-abundant methane
* Compared to both hydrogen and methane DME is easy to liquify and transport.
* Does not form soot when combusted (no carbon-carbon bonds)
* Compatible with existing diesel engines (and probably fuel cells)

Negatives

* Requires energy to convert methane to DME
* Similar molecules form shock sensitive peroxides when left standing too long. Diethyl ether is famous for this. I'm not sure if DME does this but the concern has been addressed in tle literature along with a belief such a property can be addressed with the right additives.

Quigley says

This hydrogen craze will be one big expensive boondoggle that never helps anyone do anything except waste money.

Truth. Waste money AND energy

John Bailo says

JH says

compress the hell out of it. And that costs energy.

Old argument. It's not that big a percent of the energy.

And if the sources are solar, wind, water -- who cares anyway!

Read the pdf paper that I linked. It is an excellent paper.

http://www.fuelcellforum.com/reports/E13.pdf

NEW LINK: http://ebookbrowsee.net/efcf-pdf-d61218975

By the way, even if the sources are wind, solar and water (hydropower), why waste them on making hydrogen? There are much better ways of using the electricity directly. For example, it can be used to displace coal in the grid mix. THAT would really help. Hydrogen does not help, it makes things worse.

John Bailo says

A short documentary that explores Iceland's attempt to eliminate its use of fossil fuels and convert to hydrogen produced from green sources like thermal...from General Electric.

The linked youtube video is not a documentary, it is corporate propaganda by General Electric.

Icelandics are using geothermal power (steam) to generate electricity. That is a good idea. Where they fail is when they then use that electricity to manufacture hydrogen. That is a BAD idea. What they should do is some combination of the following:

1. export the electrical energy and use it to displace coal-based power elsewhere. There are plans on the drawing board for an undersea cable to Scotland (UK).

2. create an infrastructure of electrical trolley-busses and electrial car charging stations, rather than the hydrogen infrastructure that they are building.

Doing the right combination of the above choices is better for the planet than cooking up hydrogen with the surplus electricity. That is just a waste of high-grade energy.

John Bailo says

Moreover, artificial leaf and "light harvesting" technology, like Hypersolar's, turns sunlight more directly into hydrogen (without electrolysis) at very high efficiences.

“We are very pleased with the progress made by our team,” stated Tim Young, CEO of HyperSolar. “Increasing the voltage is the key to achieving commercial success. We now have a clear path forward to reach our goal of open circuit voltage of 1.5 volts with 10% conversion efficiency to cost effectively split water into hydrogen and oxygen.

Their goal is 10% efficiency? This what you consider "very high"?

anonymous says

Until we get serious about doing this and I mean really serious, all of these will remain niche markets at best. Should we go to these alternate fuels by choice or necessity, the cost is going to be extremely significant and probably not much better than what we are paying for gasoline as far as the consumer is concerned.

Sorry BAO, the public plowed their savings into over priced homes and into mortgage debt for the next 20 years. The better alternative could have been lower home prices and higher spending on alternative fuels/solutions. There wont be any alternatives for the next 20 years... the consumer is tapped out to spend or get taxed.

justme says

Icelandics are using geothermal power (steam) to generate electricity.

like one giant pimple spewing crud from the earths center. Geothermal sits on very unstable regions .... Iceland is a terriable place to live if you fear earthquakes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Iceland

Iceland has extensive volcanic and geothermal activity. The rift associated with the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which marks the division between the European and North American tectonic plates, runs across Iceland from the southwest to the northeast. This geographic feature is prominent at the Þingvellir National Park, where the promontory creates an extraordinary natural amphitheatre. The site was the home of Iceland's parliament, the Alþing, which was first convened in 930.

John Bailo says

justme says

That is just a waste of high-grade energy.

Unless you have a storage mechanism for Green, you cannot have baseload.

Jeez, John. It was you that brought up Iceland and geothermal/steam electric power. That particular energy source **IS** baseload capable and does not need to be stored. And using the resultant electricity to cook hydrogen is a bad idea, no matter how you twist it.

Please don't start moving the goalposts with new arguments about a different scenario involving wind and solar or whatever. By the way, for such scenarios, hydrogen is STILL not a good solution for energy storage. Pumped hydro is more efficient, and does not even need to be in the same country, although it is especially handy in Iceland, which has 75% hydro electricity in the grid mix to begin with.

Look, I'm not here to argue for arguments sake, or to "win" an argument. I'm here to set the facts straight, so that people who read this can be well informed and try, in a small way, to counteract bad policy decisions and bad investments being made. I like many of your other threads, but on the topic of hydrogen you just have not figured out the facts yet. And you're in good company. Lots of people are enamored with hydrogen, but unfortunately their beliefs are based in ignorance of the relevant science.