I have never been a fan of hydrogen technology as a solution to the climate change problem. It would be great if we could power automobiles with hydrogen (generated, of course, with renewable energy), but how do you carry the hydrogen around in your car? Do you really want to be driving around on top of a tank full of compressed hydrogen? Can you say Hindenburg?
I just listened to a great segment on this week's Science Friday. The guest, Jerry Woodall, a professor at Purdue, has an interesting idea for how to carry hydrogen in a way that seems extremely safe to me.
The idea is that you carry around a bunch of aluminum. You react the aluminum with water, and that produces hydrogen, which would then be immediately burned. In the end, you're left with a tank full of aluminum oxide, which will be recycled back into aluminum (using, of course, renewable energy) at a recycling facility.
This seems like a great idea, one that makes me reconsider my skepticism towards hydrogen. But listen to the segment yourself. Also, check out the presentations on this site.
Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers!
Comments
View as Flat
odograph Posted 1:45 am
04 Jun 2007
If I were you I'd but that pound figure behind "bunch" in parenthesis ;-)
'cuz that's really the crux of this. It requires an infrastructure for us to pick up and drop off hundreds of pounds of solid material every month.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 2:32 am
04 Jun 2007
Compliments on the approach, Andrew! But watch the backlash! I am not entirely sold on Hydrogen, but I do support parallel lines of research that are not dictated or distorted by corporate interests or fossil fuels. I have consistently linked 'sustainable' and 'solar' with Hydrogen technology, but this is still ignored and distorted to fit others' views.
There are a couple of points to make. The visible flame of the Hindenberg was the aircraft dope-fabric-covering ("dope" used to have a more honored meaning), not the Hydrogen lifting gas. Hydrogen burns with little flame and it burns more quickly. Second, Hydrogen disperses very quickly, since it is a very small molecule and is lighter than air. Natural gas and propane are more explosive and therefore hazardous, yet vehicles use those fossil fuels a lot.
There is another technology for storage for vehicles. Stanley Ovshinsky is an inventor and head of Energy Conversion Devices Ovonics, and has a low pressure tank filled with a proprietary medium which absorbs and releases the gas.
A simple demonstration of the potential to do this sustainably could be my own home system. I have no grid power, but produce excess electricity from a wind turbine and PV panels. I could instead run a hydrolysis unit or charge batteries, either of them for a vehicle.
The central point here is that none of this need be in the future. It can all happen now. All that is missing is the political will to stop the fossil fuels interests.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 2:35 am
04 Jun 2007
It would also be better to burn the aluminum, if it had to be aluminum, directly in oxygen. Burning it in water yields 0.567 of its total enthalpy of oxidation in the aluminum/water reactor, and only the remaining 0.433 in the hydrogen engine.
Plus if large amounts of hydrogen are created, even with the intention of limiting the amount in existence on board the car at any one time to a very small amount, this intention may not be realized.
Odo, if you read the paper, it may convey to you the notion that an infrastructure for hundreds of pounds of not-too-combustible solid per month isn't that big of a deal. The physical paper.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
odograph Posted 2:45 am
04 Jun 2007
It is however a chicken and egg problem that some of its competitors do not face. Battery technology (wherever it tops out) does not at least require a physical swap. It is (potentially) like liquid and gaseous fuels in that we load up with what we use.
... install once, charge many ... as opposed to install many, charge once
I've read a couple books on innovation and acceptance (Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation by Utterback, and The Innovator's Dilemma by Christensen), and based on those ... I just don't see the this technology as being designed for acceptance. YMMV.
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 2:51 am
04 Jun 2007
Immediately we get distracted into Boron and nuclear power. Nuclear power is not sustainable, and concentrates power and money in the corporate oligarchy. What part of SUSTAINABILITY don't you GET? What a goddam joke.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
fermiparadox Posted 3:16 am
04 Jun 2007
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:19 am
04 Jun 2007
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:17 am
04 Jun 2007
FuelCell Energy Sells 5.1 Megawatts of Ultra-Clean Energy to South Korean Electric Power Producers for Grid Support and Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Strategic Partner POSCO Power Secures New Orders From Two Power Generating Companies and One Private IPP Developer; Delivery of Power Plants Slated for Early 2008
DANBURY, Conn., June 4, 2007 (PRIME NEWSWIRE) -- FuelCell Energy, Inc. (Nasdaq:FCEL), a leading manufacturer of secure ultra-clean power plants using a variety of fuels for commercial and industrial customers, today announced that its distribution partner POSCO Power has sold 5.1 megawatts (MW) of new power plants that allow electric utility customers in South Korea to generate clean energy and comply with the country's strict greenhouse gas reduction targets.
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:53 am
04 Jun 2007
That is a neat technology to research, especially for stationary electric needs, but it doesn't look like something that is ready to scale to autos (60 HP minimum?) at reasonable costs (less than $1,500,000).
Permalink
odograph Posted 6:55 am
04 Jun 2007
that's my "never mind" for the day.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:32 am
04 Jun 2007
Infact I do believe Metal-Air Fuel Cells do have a strong place.
Catch being, just not as vehicles.
Due to their heavy bulky natural they cannot be used as transport solutions.
What a Metal-Air fuel cell does work well for is
That said, this particular Metal-Air Fuel Cell is just flat out stupid.
First off, Aluminum is energy intensive.
Second off, Gallium is extremely expensive.
Third off, not only would you need 1 pound per mile of aluminum+gallium.
But you would need to also carry around 20 pounds of water per equivalent gallon of gasoline (which weights 6.25 pounds).
The raw energy used to make the hydrogen.
Assuming we do "classical" hydrogen where you electrocute water to make hydrogen has two problems with it.
1. You lose atleast 75% of the energy you put in. (And the energy intensity of aluminum wouldn't help)
http://greyfalcon.net/h2illusion.png
http://greyfalcon.net/h2illusion
2. Even if Hydrogen were produced from California grid electricity, which is perhaps the cleanest grid in the USA, it would still put up more CO2 than Gasoline.
http://greyfalcon.net/hydrogen2.png
_
That said, metal air fuel cells do work well for grid storage applications.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:51 am
04 Jun 2007
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070603225026 ...
Permalink
EliRabett Posted 11:24 am
04 Jun 2007
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 11:43 am
04 Jun 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
SustainableGreen Posted 12:43 pm
04 Jun 2007
Yes, BioD, and so many of the subsidies are in entrenched fossil fuels, nukes, and the newcomer, biofuels. And of course all come from the entrenched interests of the corporate oligarchy. And I see no other way to change things without first changing the Big 3: Campaign Finance, Lobbying, and Elections. These 3 perpetuate the oligarchy, and their continued existence threatens out future.
Change those laws, avoid at all costs the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" scenario, and then reorder the priorities on subsidies. Of course, unlike Big Coal, Big Oil, Big Nukes, and Big Agri-Bidness, all these subsidies would have an expiration date, since all the created energies and industries would be expected to be self-sufficient, sustainable. After all the ultimate feedstock--the sun--is free.
Interesting ideas here.
David
Sustainability For Life
Messages done with sustainable energy, with Wind and Sun!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 1:00 pm
04 Jun 2007
Repost - Original
_
Call it "Peak Hydrogen Fuel Cells".
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:50 pm
04 Jun 2007
Easy, get a technologically naive, but respected, writer to tout it..once again. Why let people who have obviously never read and do not know about these sorts of widespread scams to bring them up as if they were any kind of solution to anything?
It's a blog. No editing.
Looking forward to reading your piece on aluminum powered cars in the paper of record. Hehehey.
Meanwhile check out GRL's boron powered cars and atomic rod's thorium powered buses! Bus plunge, mushroom cloud. Whoops, clean that up volunteer fire department.
Actually zinc/air battery powered cars that fuel with zinc pellets in a liquid electrolyte fluid would work well and be easily refuelable. but the leftover zinc oxide electrolyte solution would need to be recycled too. Adding another hose at the gas pump, adding to complication and expense of fueling.
Batteries are better, plugin simple. With a backup generator that runs on regular fuel, expensive infrastructure is not necessary and 90% of fuel use can be curtailed. That can reach higher percentages as batteries get better and fuel cell/turbine backup generators are mass produced.
If you still insist on storing hydrogen in cars, check out zinc hydride storage. The zinc stays in place, the hydrogen is stored and released. Much easier than metal/slurry gas pumps.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 4:33 pm
04 Jun 2007
Because it might have some real applications for grid balancing.
But then again, one might wonder if a flow battery would be better suited.
Wonder which one is cheaper.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 8:03 am
05 Jun 2007
Dessler asked, "... how do you carry the hydrogen around in your car? ", and that's where the lightness of hydrogen becomes difficult to bear. If one wished to carry combustible hydrogen around (as opposed to one's own personal already-oxidized hydrogen), one wishes to carry it as cold low-pressure liquid. This is the lightest and compactest form. The tank Magna-Steyr makes for BMW was a few years ago reported to mass 145 kg empty, and when full contain 9.5 kg hydrogen.
That's a really good mass ratio. Ambient-temperature tanks for pressurized hydrogen typically outmass their contents by a factor of 37.5 -- that's the value for the ones in the GM Hy-wire -- because they are a lot bigger than cryotanks for the same load.
Do you really want to be driving around on top of a tank full of compressed hydrogen?
No, but as above shown, that's to some extent a strawman.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 8:01 pm
05 Jun 2007
That works out to an onboard H-mass density of 9.5 / (145 + 9.5) = 6.149%.
From Jerry Woodall's website linked in the OP:
hydrogen.ecn.purdue.edu/2007.05.01-Woodall.pdf
To get 6 mass units of H we need:
54 mass units of Al
48 mass units of O
17 mass units of Ga (0.25 x 69)
The total source mass units = 54+48+6+17 = 125, and the onboard H mass density = (6/125)x100 = 4.8%.
However, the only onboard source required in full at the beginning is the Al+Ga; the source of H and O can be added dynamically via H2O recovery. Assuming a 50% recovery of H2O, we get an H density of (6/98)x100 = 6.122%
GRLCowan wrote: That's a really good mass ratio.
I'm sure Jerry Woodall would be pleased to hear your note of approval. However, we might also note that the fuel in Mr. Woodall's technique does not boil away over time, giving it, in practical applications, perhaps a greater typical mass-density than liquid hydrogen.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:45 pm
05 Jun 2007
In particular most people assume that a fuel cell is a Platinum or Palidium based proton exchange membrane.
When in fact the more realistic and dominant fuel cells are the ones which use ceramics and common nickel as their catalyst.
The reason for ceramics is that ceramics don't change shape with high temperature increases temperature.
However as a result, is usually that these fuel cells are bulky and heavy. Or just in general don't have a high enough density to allow for mobile applications.
Much in the same way that running a car entirely off of a direct feed from Solar panels doesn't work so well.
The power density just isn't good enough.
But perhaps the main reason they survive is that they can outcompete generators at how efficiently they consume a usually HYDROGEN+CARBON based fuel source. Like Oil or Coal.
_
That said, because the public has such a generic grasp of what a fuel cell is, they automatically assume that any advance in fuel cells means that it is applicable to transportation.
Which in the case of metal-air fuel cells is not the case.
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 6:12 am
06 Jun 2007
The BMW tank is so heavy in part because of vacuum insulation, and in part because, although not rated for hundreds of bars like one of the carbon filament-wound not-a-bomb-at-alls, they are designed to let pressure rise from ambient to about four bar before letting hydrogen go to a fuel cell that waits to consume it if necessary. This takes days, and if the engine draws off hydrogen before then, it reduces the pressure and temperature. So venting to that fuel cell rarely is required.
In fact there is a heater in the liquid hydrogen tank to ensure its pressure doesn't go too low, in the expected usual case where a German burns off the whole lH2 load in the first hour of travel and then proceeds on gasoline.
--- G. R. L. Cowan, former hydrogen-energy fan
Oxygen expands around boron fire, car goes
Permalink
wacki Posted 5:28 am
16 Jun 2007
The aluminum idea has been around for a while. The problem with hydrogen isn't really storage or even the fuel cells. It's getting the hydrogen itself:
Hydrogen Economy: No backing in Physics
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 5:49 am
16 Jun 2007
What about using that "Witricity" wireless electricity to power cars for 90% of road travel -- put some coils in the surface.
Then we don't have to carry energy in a tank.
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink
danielbell Posted 3:10 am
28 Nov 2007
Fuel cells need platinum: has to be mined, extremely expensive, cost doesn't decrease with production
Hydrogen for now has to be produced with water: a story on ecogeek.org shows that a large percentage of all potable water in the US would be needed to run a hydrogen economy, with droughts and water shortages, where the hell is all that water coming from?
No infrastructure: seriously, there's no existing infrastructure
Top down corporate hegemony: they get to keep selling us fuel rather than us getting it for free from our rooftops
Dangerous: well I'd rather not crash with a giant tank of compressed hydrogen in my trunk
hydrogen is shyte, why do you think the industry is supporting it? look at the LA auto show, concept cars that have no chance of commercial viability, that's what the car industry wants, they have no plans to change so they show us this load of hairy bollocks and say "ready for the world when the world is ready"
the world is ready for something useful and practicable, ring me when my electrons are ready
Permalink
GRLCowan Posted 3:40 am
28 Nov 2007
Fuel cells need platinum: has to be mined, extremely expensive, cost doesn't decrease with production
But hydrogen cars don't need fuel cells.
Hydrogen for now has to be produced with water: a story on ecogeek.org shows that a large percentage of all potable water in the US would be needed to run a hydrogen economy ...
Thanks for the warning about ecogeek.org.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-to-boron convert
How shall cars gain nuclear cachet?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:33 am
28 Nov 2007
Why would potable water, instead of other water, be used to make hydrogen fuel?
It sounds like ecogeek.org is committing a straw-man fallacy.
Permalink
danielbell Posted 3:44 am
30 Nov 2007
Here's the story on ecogeek: http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1082/
"Michael Webber, the Associate Director Centre for International Energy and Environmental Policy, has completed an analysis of the water requirements for a burgeoning hydrogen economy slated to arrive near 2040. Around this time, it is predicted that the annual production of hydrogen would top 60 billion kg. The hydrogen, of course, will be coming from water, and he estimates that 19-69 trillion gallons of water will be needed for electrolysis and for coolant of power plants. Considering that means somewhere between 50-200 billion gallons of water per day, water is looking more and more not to be the inexhaustable resource as it was once touted, not to mention that this needs to be fresh, distilled water... so much for the oceans without energy-intense desalination plants."
Does it need to be distilled? I don't know this.
What kind of efficiencies do we get burning hydrogen? How expensive are those engines? What is the carbon intensity of that option if the hydrogen is not renewably produced?
thanks for the responses
wiserearth.org/user/danielbell
Permalink