Hydrogen

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: Wreckage
The problem is not just generating the Hydrogen but distributing it and converting everything to use it. Conceivably Hydrogen could run your car, heat your house, power a generator, etc. It took decades to put in place all of the stations and pipelines that deliver natural gas and standard gasoline.

If Petroleum were to dry up tomorrow, Hydrogen could take its place. Instead of building oil rigs, you could build windmill and solar farms. You could convert oil and natural gas pipelines into hydrogen pipelines. I think Hydrogen could be the perfect fuel, however it will take a lot of time and money before we are all using it (just like Petroleum).

I have to disagree with you. The problem most definitely IS generating the hydrogen.

If cheap hydrogen suddenly became available, we would not have to change our distribution infrastructure overnight to take advantage of it. We could simply retrofit all the existing gas-fired electric generating plants to burn it (and build hydrogen-fired plants to displace those buring oil and coal). Infrastructure change would be relatively small. The energy from hydrogen could be delivered as electricity just as the energy from fossil fules is delivered today. The reduction in overall pollution would be huge (e.g. no more acid rain, etc.).

Conversion to any new energy source will start at the largest users first (e.g. power plants, large industrial plants, etc.) before spreading down to smaller users (e.g. commercial businesses and individuals).

But cheap hydrogen isn't available. There are no reservoirs of hydrogen gas we can drill into, or deposits of hydrogen we can dig up. Hydrogen (like electricity) must be produced using a process powered by some other source of energy. Hydrogen will not displace fossil fuels.

What could replace fossil fuels is a new energy source to power the hydrogen producing process that is so incredibly cheap that the end-use cost of hydrogen becomes less than the end-use cost of fossil fuels (or our society decides to consider the real costs of pollution!). Although wind and solar are becoming more competative, neither are cheaper than fossil fuels right now. That's why people are holding onto hope for new fission/fusion technologies.

I can agree that there would be challenges involved if we ever get to the point where it makes sense to try to distribute hydrogen for small end uses, particularly for transportation. But the far bigger challenge is coming up with that cheap energy source that would make hydrogen economically competative with the current fossil fuel alternatives.

Another two cents worth of my thoughts...

Generating Hydrogen is a simple process of passing an electric current through water. Not to mention separating it from current hydrocarbon fuels or newly discovered bio-organic methods. It can be done at home. However electricity is not as cheap as fossil fuel (yet). The higher the price of Oil the closer using Hydrogen on a daily basis gets. There are already Hydrogen fueling stations. Cars can run on Hydrogen just like they run on gasoline.

Actually the only real barrier is the initial cost of converting our infrastructure from Petroleum to Hydrogen. No one wants to pay that bill. Not when coal and oil are still relatively cheap. Not to mention that 'Big Oil" has been protecting it's monopoly for decades.

If the dream of nuclear fusion ever became a reality it would only further the use of Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe and it burns pure without pollution. It's the perfect fuel and eventually, it may be our only fuel.

Do you even have a background in science?

Hydrogen is the most abundant element, but it is always bound chemically on earth. There are no wells of hydrogen. To produce hydrogen, we need a primary power source (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) otherwise the entire idea falls flat on its head. Hydrogen is not an energy source unless we master fusion.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Do you even have a background in science?

Hydrogen is the most abundant element, but it is always bound chemically on earth. There are no wells of hydrogen. To produce hydrogen, we need a primary power source (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) otherwise the entire idea falls flat on its head. Hydrogen is not an energy source unless we master fusion.

There are no wells of gasoline, it needs to be refined from petroleum. Hydrogen needs to be split from water. two thirds of the planet is covered in water.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Calin
Generating hydrogen might be a simple process (passing an electric current thru water). However, the efficiency of hydrogen generation is quite a bit lower than the theoretical 100% (using a perfect something to create electricity from hydrogen, you will end up with less electricity than what you used to separate hydrogen from water). And this is a significant problem, as the proportion is quite big.
Also, storing hydrogen is expensive: liquid hydrogen uses some kind of one third of its energy for the cooling process, and compressed (high-pressure) hydrogen uses a tenth of its energy to compress itself.
Transporting hydrogen in pipes might be even more lossy - as hydrogen will escape thru cracks to small for the air to escape (not to mention too small for gasoline to escape) - your losses can be much bigger if you pump hydrogen thru gas pipes.

I am not suggesting hydrogen as a replacement for all energy sources. It would however be a good replacement for gasoline. It takes a lot of energy to drill for oil, transport oil, refine oil, then transport the gasoline. Theoretically hydrogen could be made on site at hydrogen fueling stations.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Generating Hydrogen is a simple process of passing an electric current through water. Not to mention separating it from current hydrocarbon fuels or newly discovered bio-organic methods. It can be done at home. However electricity is not as cheap as fossil fuel (yet). The higher the price of Oil the closer using Hydrogen on a daily basis gets. There are already Hydrogen fueling stations. Cars can run on Hydrogen just like they run on gasoline.

Actually the only real barrier is the initial cost of converting our infrastructure from Petroleum to Hydrogen. No one wants to pay that bill. Not when coal and oil are still relatively cheap. Not to mention that 'Big Oil" has been protecting it's monopoly for decades.

If the dream of nuclear fusion ever became a reality it would only further the use of Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe and it burns pure without pollution. It's the perfect fuel and eventually, it may be our only fuel.

Okay, Wreckage...you've inspired me to add another cent or two!

Remember that simple and economic are not always the same thing. It is a "simple" process to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen in the sense that the underlying principles are understood by high school chemistry students and the equipment can be cobbled together in any decent high school chemistry lab. But the cost of that "simple" process is tied to the cost of electricity, which is determined by the cost of the energy source used to produce the electricity, which right now is the cost of fossil fuels. In order to make hydrogen through dissociation economical, you'll need an energy source that is significantly cheaper than fossil fuels. Until then, electricity costs will rise in step with the prices of oil and coal, and therefore hydrogen prices will always be higher than electricity or fossil fuels because of the inherent inefficiencies in converting energy from one type to another.

Note that separating hydorgen from "current hydrocarbon fuels" does nothing to reduce our need for fossil fuels. The process for doing this will certainly consume energy, and the resulting net energy realized from a barrel of oil will be significantly less because of this consumption and because you no longer get the energy released when carbon is burned to produce carbon dioxide. (You also need someplace to bury all the carbon.) The so-called bio-organic methods are still a long way from proving their worth, and since they would rely on solar power they will suffer from the same problems that generating electricty from solar has. And I wouldn't get sucked too far into the "Big Oil" conspiracy theories either...

I'll also reiterate my other point that you need to remember the pollution created by burning the additional fossil fuel to make the electricity needed to produce hydrogen (or charge batteries). It may burn "clean" in your hydrogen-powered car, but it can only be really "clean" if the energy source used to produce the hydrogen is pollution free too.

In order to rid ourselves of fossil fuel economy, we need to look to hydrogen as the nuclear fuel for fusion reactors rather than as the chemical fuel for our automobiles.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Generating Hydrogen is a simple process of passing an electric current through water. Not to mention separating it from current hydrocarbon fuels or newly discovered bio-organic methods. It can be done at home. However electricity is not as cheap as fossil fuel (yet). The higher the price of Oil the closer using Hydrogen on a daily basis gets. There are already Hydrogen fueling stations. Cars can run on Hydrogen just like they run on gasoline.

Actually the only real barrier is the initial cost of converting our infrastructure from Petroleum to Hydrogen. No one wants to pay that bill. Not when coal and oil are still relatively cheap. Not to mention that 'Big Oil" has been protecting it's monopoly for decades.

If the dream of nuclear fusion ever became a reality it would only further the use of Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe and it burns pure without pollution. It's the perfect fuel and eventually, it may be our only fuel.

Okay, Wreckage...you've inspired me to add another cent or two!

Remember that simple and economic are not always the same thing. It is a "simple" process to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen in the sense that the underlying principles are understood by high school chemistry students and the equipment can be cobbled together in any decent high school chemistry lab. But the cost of that "simple" process is tied to the cost of electricity, which is determined by the cost of the energy source used to produce the electricity, which right now is the cost of fossil fuels. In order to make hydrogen through dissociation economical, you'll need an energy source that is significantly cheaper than fossil fuels. Until then, electricity costs will rise in step with the prices of oil and coal, and therefore hydrogen prices will always be higher than electricity or fossil fuels because of the inherent inefficiencies in converting energy from one type to another.

Note that separating hydorgen from "current hydrocarbon fuels" does nothing to reduce our need for fossil fuels. The process for doing this will certainly consume energy, and the resulting net energy realized from a barrel of oil will be significantly less because of this consumption and because you no longer get the energy released when carbon is burned to produce carbon dioxide. (You also need someplace to bury all the carbon.) The so-called bio-organic methods are still a long way from proving their worth, and since they would rely on solar power they will suffer from the same problems that generating electricty from solar has. And I wouldn't get sucked too far into the "Big Oil" conspiracy theories either...

I'll also reiterate my other point that you need to remember the pollution created by burning the additional fossil fuel to make the electricity needed to produce hydrogen (or charge batteries). It may burn "clean" in your hydrogen-powered car, but it can only be really "clean" if the energy source used to produce the hydrogen is pollution free too.

In order to rid ourselves of fossil fuel economy, we need to look to hydrogen as the nuclear fuel for fusion reactors rather than as the chemical fuel for our automobiles.

Fusion could be 100 years away and we will probably be out of fossil fuels by then. If we can drill oil in the middle east, transport it half way around the world, refine it and then transport it across the country, we can easily do the same with hydrogen. Wind, Solar, Tidal, Nuclear energy all could be used to generate hydrogen. If we don't do it soon, we will be screwed when oil becomes $200 a barrel. I just paid $40 for a tank of gas that won't last me a week. It might be a worthy investment to install solar tiles on my rough to generate my own fuel. It was not always economical to use gasoline but economies of scale kicked in and brought it down, the same will happen with the next fuel source.

The government really would hate for us to use hydrogen. Because if you can make it at home you can't tax it and the rich people can't sell it to you.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Generating Hydrogen is a simple process of passing an electric current through water. Not to mention separating it from current hydrocarbon fuels or newly discovered bio-organic methods. It can be done at home. However electricity is not as cheap as fossil fuel (yet). The higher the price of Oil the closer using Hydrogen on a daily basis gets. There are already Hydrogen fueling stations. Cars can run on Hydrogen just like they run on gasoline.

Actually the only real barrier is the initial cost of converting our infrastructure from Petroleum to Hydrogen. No one wants to pay that bill. Not when coal and oil are still relatively cheap. Not to mention that 'Big Oil" has been protecting it's monopoly for decades.

If the dream of nuclear fusion ever became a reality it would only further the use of Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the Universe and it burns pure without pollution. It's the perfect fuel and eventually, it may be our only fuel.

Okay, Wreckage...you've inspired me to add another cent or two!

Remember that simple and economic are not always the same thing. It is a "simple" process to dissociate water into hydrogen and oxygen in the sense that the underlying principles are understood by high school chemistry students and the equipment can be cobbled together in any decent high school chemistry lab. But the cost of that "simple" process is tied to the cost of electricity, which is determined by the cost of the energy source used to produce the electricity, which right now is the cost of fossil fuels. In order to make hydrogen through dissociation economical, you'll need an energy source that is significantly cheaper than fossil fuels. Until then, electricity costs will rise in step with the prices of oil and coal, and therefore hydrogen prices will always be higher than electricity or fossil fuels because of the inherent inefficiencies in converting energy from one type to another.

Note that separating hydorgen from "current hydrocarbon fuels" does nothing to reduce our need for fossil fuels. The process for doing this will certainly consume energy, and the resulting net energy realized from a barrel of oil will be significantly less because of this consumption and because you no longer get the energy released when carbon is burned to produce carbon dioxide. (You also need someplace to bury all the carbon.) The so-called bio-organic methods are still a long way from proving their worth, and since they would rely on solar power they will suffer from the same problems that generating electricty from solar has. And I wouldn't get sucked too far into the "Big Oil" conspiracy theories either...

I'll also reiterate my other point that you need to remember the pollution created by burning the additional fossil fuel to make the electricity needed to produce hydrogen (or charge batteries). It may burn "clean" in your hydrogen-powered car, but it can only be really "clean" if the energy source used to produce the hydrogen is pollution free too.

In order to rid ourselves of fossil fuel economy, we need to look to hydrogen as the nuclear fuel for fusion reactors rather than as the chemical fuel for our automobiles.

Fusion could be 100 years away and we will probably be out of fossil fuels by then. If we can drill oil in the middle east, transport it half way around the world, refine it and then transport it across the country, we can easily do the same with hydrogen. Wind, Solar, Tidal, Nuclear energy all could be used to generate hydrogen. If we don't do it soon, we will be screwed when oil becomes $200 a barrel. I just paid $40 for a tank of gas that won't last me a week. It might be a worthy investment to install solar tiles on my rough to generate my own fuel. It was not always economical to use gasoline but economies of scale kicked in and brought it down, the same will happen with the next fuel source.

The government really would hate for us to use hydrogen. Because if you can make it at home you can't tax it and the rich people can't sell it to you.

the man has a point...

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot

Do you even have a background in science?

Hydrogen is the most abundant element, but it is always bound chemically on earth. There are no wells of hydrogen. To produce hydrogen, we need a primary power source (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) otherwise the entire idea falls flat on its head. Hydrogen is not an energy source unless we master fusion.

There are no wells of gasoline, it needs to be refined from petroleum. Hydrogen needs to be split from water. two thirds of the planet is covered in water.

Hydrogen split from water provides less than if you simply used the energy at the point of use.

For example, we have several energy transfers taking place.

Electricity (forget the inefficencies beforehand) --> H2o --> H2 + O2 --> H2 + O2 --> H2O

At each step, you lose energy, this is a basic, unavoidable cost of doing business (1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics). Splitting water costs more energy than burning the H2. Right there, you need to subsidize the production of hydrogen.

Electricity comes from coal, natural gas, nuclear and oil (these make up >99% of all electricity generated in the US). Out of them, only nuclear is non-fossil fuel. Thus, a hydrogen economy is even more dependant on fossil fuels than our current petrochemical economy.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

the man has a point...

Sadly, I'm afraid he does not.

We can not "easily do the same with hydrogen" because we can not drill for it in the Middle East or anyplace else. Wind, solar, tidal, and nuclear technologies remain too expensive and/or controversial to become more than a minor source of energy. With the possible exception of wind, this will likely remain true even if fossil fuel prices double or triple (IMHO). And if I'm wrong, these technologies will be first applied to the generation of electricity rather than hydrogen.

If you decide to install solar on your roof, you'll be better off using it to collect heat for your house and hot water. If you insist on enduring the penalty of energy conversion, then go ahead and use solar cells to produce electricity. Your worst option is to endure a second conversion penalty to convert the electricity into hydrogen.

Oh, and please realize that "rich people" will sell you the hydrogen-producing devices (as well as the hydrogen-burning cars and appliances) and all of these will be taxed by the government. There will still have to be money collected to build and maintain the roads even if no one's paying taxes on gasoline anymore.

I'm out of pennies and therefore done with this thread...:beer:

 

[DrPizza]

Wreckage, concerning drilling for oil, transporting oil, refining it into gasoline, you seem to think it uses a lot of energy, compared to the energy you gain in the form of gasoline. What you seem to be missing is (I'm going to make up the numbers, but the point they make is identical to if I used the actual numbers) say you want to drill for oil with the intention of making gasoline for cars. You have to drill out 2 million gallons of oil to refine and result in 1 million gallons of gasoline. It takes 50,000 gallons of gasoline to drill for that oil. It takes 50,000 gallons of gasoline to transport the oil to the refinery. It takes 50,000 gallons of gasoline to transport the newly refined gasoline to gas stations. You end up with a net amount of gasoline left over: you gained 850,000 gallons of gasoline. It supports its own production.

Now, suppose you want 50 gallons of hydrogen. (again, making the numbers up, but the point is identical to if I used the actual numbers). It's easy to make at home, so you start with 50 gallons of hydrogen, burn it to make electricity; you get the an amount of energy in electricity equivalent to 40 gallons of hydrogen. It is physically impossible to have 100% efficiency. (laws of physics) Now, you use that electricity to make hydrogen: you end up with 30 gallons of hydrogen. You have LESS than you started with; rather than more as in the case of gasoline.

Or, you start with 50 gallons of gasoline, use that in a generator to make electricity, then use that electricity to make hydrogen. You now have enough hydrogen to replace about 30 gallons of gasoline. Well, that's actually pretty generous. Given the inherent inefficiencies (many from physical laws of thermodynamics), you'll be lucky to get enough hydrogen to replace 15 or 20 gallons of gasoline. So, using fossil fuels to produce hydrogen is, more or less, dumb. The only rational reason for doing this would be to do so on a very large, industrial scale, taking advantage of efficiency of economy, for the sole purpose of displacing pollution (L.A. can have all the hydrogen cars it wants; Kansas gets the smog.) But, this would result in an INCREASED demand for fossil fuels.

Now, suppose they put a $10 per gallon tax on gasoline used for automobiles, to encourage people to be more fuel efficient (I bet it'd work... soccer moms would realize they don't need grand caravans to get groceries.) You deduce that at that price, it would be cheaper for you to produce your own hydrogen in your home. (and, this would probably be true.)
A gallon of gasoline contains roughly 125 million joules of energy. For a second, take a look at a 100 watt lightbulb. No, make that a 1500 watt electric heater. A watt is a joule per second. So, every second the heater is on, it is using 1500 joules. Every hour the heater is on, it uses 3600 seconds times 1500 joules per second = 5,400,000 joules of energy. But, rather than sell you electricity in terms of joules, the power company simplifies the size of the numbers you need to use - rather than 3600 seconds times 1500 joules per second, they use 1 hour times 1500 watts, or 1500 watt-hours which they label as 1.5 kilo-watt hours. Now, to produce 125 million joules of energy (replace the gallon of gas), you're going to need that 1500 watts running for a little over 23 hours (125,000,000 divided by 5,400,000). So, you'll be paying for 1.5 times 23.15 kw-hr = 34.7 kilowatt hours. I don't know about you, but living in NY, I pay more than most states for my electricity; 11 or 12 cents per kw-hr. (or more? I can't remember) But, let's suppose you're paying 5 cents per kilowatt hour. That's $1.736 for the energy equivalent to a gallon of gas. (But, that assumes 100% efficiency for your production method, which is physically impossible.) I'd be paying well more than even today's cost per gallon of gasoline.
Now, before you say, "wow, I'd save money", remember, the point is to reduce the need for fossil fuels. Unfortunately more than 1 gallon of gasoline (or its equivalent) in fossil fuels will be burned so that you can produce your equivalent in hydrogen to 1 gallon of gasoline. In fact, it'd probably be closer to or more than 2 gallons of gasoline burned so that you can get a gallons worth of gas mileage.

But, after this $10 per gallon tax on gasoline, you tell all your neighbors about how much money you're saving and they start making their own hydrogen as well. Uncle Sam catches wind of this and BAMM. Before your head can spin, he slaps a tax on the electricity you're using. Only two things in life are certain: death and taxes.

But, clever you has decided that you're going to produce your own electricity. I can if I want. I have 18 acres with plenty of space for a couple of windmills. I even have a stream that has enough flow in the spring that I can have my own little hydropower plant (I plan to for sh!ts and giggles one of these days - I may even be able to draw 2 or 3 hundred watts from it - if I'm lucky.) Let's see... solar... solar... I actually contemplated using solar for my hot water, but it's not worth it to me (at this time) - I've been so busy that I don't have the time to build a home-made setup for this. Believe me, it's coming in the next couple of years, but my current costs for hot water are approximately $200 for the year; this is reasonably accurate as my hot water tank is oil-fired, and I use the oil exclusively for this purpose; I heat with coal, and have propane for cooking. But, that's me. I have the space. And, I have the resources such that I can make home-made windmills, rather than purchase commercial wind-mills designed for individuals.

Now, lets suppose you actually *do* have enough space for your own windmill, and you purchase one. (lifespan ~30 years, annual maint., yadda yadda yadda, this is already too long) It's going to cost you about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. Or, a lot per gallon equivalent of gasoline, but it's do-able. Heck, this may even give me a project to do in a few years. Since work is 4 miles away, I may just possibly be able to use a hydrogen powered vehicle on a daily basis, from my own hydrogen! Nah... I'll ride my bike.

Anyway, for the average person thinking they can use solar or wind in their small back yard to produce sufficient electricity:

Although or because wind provides only 0.2% of US electricity, the idol of wind
evokes much worship. The basic fact of wind is that it provides about 1.2 watts per square
meter or 12kW per hectare, or 5000 watts per acre of year round average electric power.
So, 100 windy square meters, a good size for a Manhattan apartment, can power one lamp,
but not the computers, tv, microwave oven, clothes dryer or dozens of other devices in the
apartment, or the apartments above or below it.

Solar to electricity: less than 10 watts per square meter, IIRC. Oh, and forget about producing hydrogen 24/7, unless for 6 months of the year at the north pole. Heck, I've even forgotten to mention... do you only average a gallon of gasoline a day? My family averages about 3 gallons a day, spread out between 2 cars. How much space do you have for this equipment to make hydrogen?? Since you seemed to be implying electrolysis, I'll point out that when we did electrolysis in labs in high school, it wasn't happening very fast. Of course, there are other methods (all of which require energy input.) This is where someone inevitably will suggest bio-chemical methods, i.e. using a certain type of bacteria or something. After a few moments of thought, even if these methods are perfected, I think I can point out enough over-sights to show this simply isn't feasible to cover the U.S. needs for consumption.



I recommend these articles for further reading
Concerning energy sources, and the myth that solar or wind are feasible in the future to supply all but a small percentage of our needs: http://phe.rockefeller.edu/PDF_FILES/NEIrevision11june04.pdf

Concerning fuel efficiency (or, why you are NOT going to get 200 miles to the gallon) - this would apply to internal combustion of hydrogen as well: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/200MPGCar.HTM

I hope this helps. I probably have a small error or two in here, since I used the quick reply and don't feel like proof-reading it; if that's the case, sorry.

 

[Wreckage]

The point is that fossil fuels won't be here forever.

Not to mention the huge amount of pollution they make.

Do you even think we would be in Iraq if it was not for oil? Nope, that's why we are staying out of the Sudan.

Oil has a price beyond production and when it's gone there is no clear replacement. Hydrogen can and most likely will be that replacement.

I'm glad "powerengineer" is done with this thread, because this topic needs an open mind and a look at the future.

Right now hydrogen is not economically viable to produce and use, but if enough R&D were dumped into it (much like oil exploration) it will be.

I don't want to turn this in to a political issue, but those defending oil must not give a s*** what your kids and grandkids will have to pay for so that you can maintain the status quo.

Check the recent energy bill passed through congress and see how many billions are being dumped into oil R&D. If it were such a miracle fuel why are we still paying billions for it's discovery.

I wish I could live in whatever world these people do where oil flies out of the ground and into their car and that the exhaust is pure and clean. Where it's an unlimited supply and I don't mind that my whole economy is tied to it and that thousands must die in order to preserve it. Ignorance is bliss.

Yes, oil is relatively cheap right now if you don?t count the environmental impact and political blood. If as much resources were put into hydrogen that has been put into oil over the last 100 years we would all be using a clean and near unlimited fuel source, instead we will use whatever crap we can dig out of the ground.

FUD

 

[DrPizza]

Wreckage... you're missing the point. Hydrogen CANNOT replace oil.
We need to replace oil with a SOURCE of energy. Hydrogen isn't a source; it's a means to transport the energy.
It's not a matter of being economically viable to produce.
If space aliens came across Earth tomorrow and said "hey, look at the pollution from burning fossil fuels. Let's clean up their planet." and they had the technology to beam away all of our fossil fuels, well, then, we'd be fvcked.

At that point, it wouldn't be a matter of being "economically viable." We simply couldn't do it. What are you planning on doing? Plugging in the hydrogen producing equipment into the outlet on your wall? 80% of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels. What are you going to replace that 80% with??! Hydrogen? No, it doesn't exist! Show me where you're going to get it. Ohhh, from the oceans? And, just how do you plan on doing that? You may as well point your finger at the sun and say "there it is. We'll get it from there... somehow" All the technology in the world can't and never will be able to separate the hydrogen from the oceans without a source energy.

No matter what you do, you need some sort of machine or creation to break the water into hydrogen and oxygen.
And, it takes ENERGY to run that machine. Your choices for that energy: burning fossil fuels, hydro-electric, nuclear, solar, and wind. Period.

The energy needed to run your machine will ALWAYS be more than the energy you get in the form of Hydrogen.

So, where are you going to get the energy from to power your machine? From hydrogen? If you think you can put a gallon of hydrogen in the fuel tank, fill the machine with water, and turn the water into 2 gallons of hydrogen, you're mistaken. What this means (for the 10th time) is that the gallon of hydrogen you use for fuel is going to be able to break up the water into hydrogen and oxygen (no problem). But, after you use up that gallon of hydrogen in the fuel tank and you look in the output tank, you're going to have LESS than 1 gallon of hydrogen. You just wasted what precious little hydrogen you had. Use 100 gallons to power your equipment, and your output will be less than 100 gallons. It's not a matter of scale; you will always have LESS energy than you started with. It's a matter of relatively simple chemistry and physics. The odds of this being wrong are about the same as the odds that the earth actually is flat with an edge to fall off if we sail too far. They are well understood principles.

So, when the fossil fuels run out, you will have these choices for energy: hydro-electric, solar, wind, nuclear. Maybe you've thought of something like burning wood or perhaps alcohol from corn; let's include them under solar, since untimately that's the source for the energy. (ditto for wind and hydro-electric, but I'm not going to split hairs) Oh, and one other way which I'm working on...

Neither solar nor wind can provide more than a small percentage of what would be needed. You can see the article I cited in my previous post. The only truly feasible long term replacement for fossil fuels is nuclear. Hmmmm... I wonder why our newest aircraft carriers, etc. are run from nuclear reactors... could it be that if there was a war and worldwide disruption of oil that they would have an energy source? Write to your congressman and suggest putting sails on our aircraft carriers (wind) or solar cells on the deck to power them. I hope you see that each of those is ridiculous.

Now, where we CAN get "extra" energy from hydrogen; perhaps this is what you might be confused about
Fusion reactors (fission and fusion are the two types of nuclear energy)
Smack 2 hydrogens together and you get helium + energy. But, it takes a lot of energy to smack the two hydrogens together hard enough.

BUT, the energy you get from smacking them together is more than the energy needed to smack them together in the first place. Potentially a LOT more. This is the area that should be receiving tons of research money. Oh, and you can use the extra energy to smack more hydrogens together, to get the hydrogen out of the ocean, and to power your computer and lightbulbs.

 

[DrPizza]

Here's an analogy for you, Wreckage.

Suppose the world was running out of energy (in the form of electricity)
You invented a solar cell that was 99.5% efficient (incredible!!)

So, you set up your own power plant. Inside, you put 100 solar cells, and 100 lightbulbs.
If you think you can turn on the bulbs for a second or two by any means, then think that the energy being produced by the solar cells will be enough to keep the bulbs lit endlessly, then may I suggest a career that has absolutely nothing to do with technology or politics.

However! (there's a good side to this) You can keep the lights on (using electricity provided by a real power plant) and use those solar cells to charge up batteries which will be used by kids all over the country to operate toy cars. Note: don't even think you're going to hook up the lightbulbs to those batteries now.

The batteries you produced to power the kids toy cars is equivalent to what hydrogen would be doing if we were producing it, regardless of the means of production. It simply transports the energy to somewhere else, and it contains less energy than it took to make it.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Wreckage... you're missing the point. Hydrogen CANNOT replace oil.
We need to replace oil with a SOURCE of energy. Hydrogen isn't a source; it's a means to transport the energy.

Well unless you can pour oil into your car and run it, oil is not energy either. You can burn hydrogen just like you burn gas, hydrogen can be used in a fuel cell to create electricity. Instead of building oil rigs and oil tankers we can build solar and windmill farms out at sea the do nothing but generate hydrogen.

This is not a pipe dream (pun intended). Hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen internal combustion engines are already running. hydrogen gas stations exist in California and Washington DC. Like I said it's not a matter of if we will use hydrogen it's just a matter of when.

Now to answer the original question: Hydrogen, why is it so costly?

Answer: Much of the technology is new and not enough R&D has been spent to perfect it. However, every year the technology gets better and more efficient and the cost is dropping rapidly.


New ways to produce hydrogen are being found all the time.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54456,00.html

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Well unless you can pour oil into your car and run it, oil is not energy either. You can burn hydrogen just like you burn gas, hydrogen can be used in a fuel cell to create electricity. Instead of building oil rigs and oil tankers we can build solar and windmill farms out at sea the do nothing but generate hydrogen.

This is not a pipe dream (pun intended). Hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen internal combustion engines are already running. hydrogen gas stations exist in California and Washington DC. Like I said it's not a matter of if we will use hydrogen it's just a matter of when.

Now to answer the original question: Hydrogen, why is it so costly?

Answer: Much of the technology is new and not enough R&D has been spent to perfect it. However, every year the technology gets better and more efficient and the cost is dropping rapidly.


New ways to produce hydrogen are being found all the time.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54456,00.html

Um... Yeah. Gas comes from oil. The purpose of modern oil refineries is the selective production of hydrocarbons with compositions distributed around octane and heptane. If all we needed oil for was to lubricate motors, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

I'm not sure why I missed this thread thus far, but I'll pitch in my two cents later. I've built a hydrogen fuel cell car from scratch and studied fuel cells extensively, so maybe I can add some insight.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
[
Um... Yeah. Gas comes from oil. The purpose of modern oil refineries is the selective production of hydrocarbons with compositions distributed around octane and heptane. If all we needed oil for was to lubricate motors, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Yeah, I know. The point was that gasoline needs to be refined from oil, much in the same way hydrogen needs to be split from water.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
[
Um... Yeah. Gas comes from oil. The purpose of modern oil refineries is the selective production of hydrocarbons with compositions distributed around octane and heptane. If all we needed oil for was to lubricate motors, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Yeah, I know. The point was that gasoline needs to be refined from oil, much in the same way hydrogen needs to be split from water.

Yes, but the difference is that you only need a small amount of energy to refine a certain amount of oil.
If you i.e. burn 1 m^3 of gasoline you would get enough energy to refine 10 m^3 of new gasoline (or something like that, the exact amount is not important)

If you burn 1 m^3 of hydrogen you do NOT get enough energy to produce 1 m^3 of new hydrogen from water,you would end ut with maybe 0.5 m^3.

 

[supagold]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
The point is that fossil fuels won't be here forever.

Not to mention the huge amount of pollution they make.

Do you even think we would be in Iraq if it was not for oil? Nope, that's why we are staying out of the Sudan.

Oil has a price beyond production and when it's gone there is no clear replacement. Hydrogen can and most likely will be that replacement.

I'm glad "powerengineer" is done with this thread, because this topic needs an open mind and a look at the future.

Right now hydrogen is not economically viable to produce and use, but if enough R&D were dumped into it (much like oil exploration) it will be.

I don't want to turn this in to a political issue, but those defending oil must not give a s*** what your kids and grandkids will have to pay for so that you can maintain the status quo.

Check the recent energy bill passed through congress and see how many billions are being dumped into oil R&D. If it were such a miracle fuel why are we still paying billions for it's discovery.

I wish I could live in whatever world these people do where oil flies out of the ground and into their car and that the exhaust is pure and clean. Where it's an unlimited supply and I don't mind that my whole economy is tied to it and that thousands must die in order to preserve it. Ignorance is bliss.

Yes, oil is relatively cheap right now if you don?t count the environmental impact and political blood. If as much resources were put into hydrogen that has been put into oil over the last 100 years we would all be using a clean and near unlimited fuel source, instead we will use whatever crap we can dig out of the ground.

FUD

Why is that people who are obviously wrong insist that everyone else keep an open mind? If hydrogen really is so easy to make, why not back up your arguments with evidence?

I don't want to turn this into P&N either, but it's obvious that you know about as much about that as you do about energy. In 2001, we were importing about 800,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq at prices set primarily by the US and Great Britan. The Sudan DOES have large reserves of oil, which is exactly why the same countries who didn't want us going into Iraq don't want us going in there. Also, about the rich and power elite not wanting us to have hydrogen, I guess you didn't catch Bush's 2003 State of the Union address where he asked for $1.2 billion for research into hydrogen? Of course, the reason is that this benefits big energy, because it would actually increase energy consumption. But you don't want to hear that, because you think "open mind" = "empty mind".

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: supagold

Why is that people who are obviously wrong insist that everyone else keep an open mind? If hydrogen really is so easy to make, why not back up your arguments with evidence?

I don't want to turn this into P&N either, but it's obvious that you know about as much about that as you do about energy. In 2001, we were importing about 800,000 barrels of oil a day from Iraq at prices set primarily by the US and Great Britan. The Sudan DOES have large reserves of oil, which is exactly why the same countries who didn't want us going into Iraq don't want us going in there. Also, about the rich and power elite not wanting us to have hydrogen, I guess you didn't catch Bush's 2003 State of the Union address where he asked for $1.2 billion for research into hydrogen? Of course, the reason is that this benefits big energy, because it would actually increase energy consumption. But you don't want to hear that, because you think "open mind" = "empty mind".

Wrong? As already stated above any high school kid can make hydrogen by passing an electric current through water. It's not about how easy it is to make hydrogen, it's about the current cost and use. Go back and read the WHOLE thread before you make veiled insults.

Also, I am not arguing the point that oil is cheap energy. Ever ones counter to hydrogen so far is that oil is cheaper. Oil is a nasty pollutant and it's running out. There needs to be a replacement, and I have heard none of you point out something better than hydrogen that exists.

As far as the Sudan.....
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/sudan1103/8.htm#_Toc54492556
"The large oil reserves in Sudan, which are located almost entirely in the southern third of the country, make it potentially a producer in the Brunei/Colombia range. It is not considered a potential megaproducer on the level of Saudi Arabia or Iraq"

As far as GW asking for Hydrogen money, the energy bill he signed gave upwards of $14.5 billion towards oil. Hmmm makes sense that if oil is so easy to get and hydrogen so hard to get you need to spend more on oil.....whatever. :roll:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washi...y_bill_highlights_influence_of_texans/

Sorry that the facts don't support you.

 

[supagold]

I've read the whole thread. The point is that hydrogen isn't an energy source at all. It's more like power lines or buying batteries at the store. That's the whole point. Oil and hydrogen = apples and oranges. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Therefore, hydrogen cannot replace oil. I could go on trying to say this different ways, but the majority of the posts have made this point, and you just don't want to see it. Forget it though. It's a conspiracy. Oh, and 10 seconds of google searching turns up this page:

http://www.fuelcellmarkets.com/article_...t_view.fcm?articleid=9961&subsite=2541

Which shows $3.3 billion of that energy bill going directly to hydrogen. And starting off a rebuttal of my claim that the Sudan does not have large oil reserves with a quote that begins "The large oil reserves in the Sudan..." isn't exactly shutting me down. Have fun talking to yourself.

 

[Geniere]

Originally posted by: Wreckage?Wrong? As already stated above any high school kid can make hydrogen by passing an electric current through water. It's not about how easy it is to make hydrogen, it's about the current cost and use. Go back and read the WHOLE thread before you make veiled insults.

Also, I am not arguing the point that oil is cheap energy. Ever ones counter to hydrogen so far is that oil is cheaper. Oil is a nasty pollutant and it's running out. There needs to be a replacement, and I have heard none of you point out something better than hydrogen that exists.

Sorry that the facts don't support you?.

Sorry Wreckage you are incorrect. You seem to be unable to grasp the obvious fact that hydrogen does not exist except in chemical combination with other elements. It takes energy to free it from its chemical bond. There will always be, repeat always be, a net loss in the process. On this planet, there does not exist now, nor will there ever exist a means to produce hydrogen without a net loss of energy.

Several posters have stated that hydrogen may, in the future, prove to be a replacement for the automobile battery. That is correct; hydrogen can only be used as a means to store energy, it is not a source of energy.

When oil is pumped from a well and distilled to produce various fuels, there is a net gain in stored energy within those fuels.

Burning fossil fuels to produce hydrogen is just plain dumb. With the best-known processes of production, distribution and local storage, the total losses would be about 50%. Those losses would literally go up in smoke! The least polluting means to produce hydrogen is by fission and hopefully, in the near future, fusion power. Then and only then would hydrogen be considered a near non-polluting means of storing energy.

In blocking the construction of nuclear power plants, the environmentalists have been the biggest contributors to ?global warming?.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: supagold
I've read the whole thread. The point is that hydrogen isn't an energy source at all. It's more like power lines or buying batteries at the store. That's the whole point. Oil and hydrogen = apples and oranges. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Therefore, hydrogen cannot replace oil. I could go on trying to say this different ways, but the majority of the posts have made this point, and you just don't want to see it. Forget it though. It's a conspiracy. Oh, and 10 seconds of google searching turns up this page:

http://www.fuelcellmarkets.com/article_...t_view.fcm?articleid=9961&subsite=2541

Which shows $3.3 billion of that energy bill going directly to hydrogen. And starting off a rebuttal of my claim that the Sudan does not have large oil reserves with a quote that begins "The large oil reserves in the Sudan..." isn't exactly shutting me down. Have fun talking to yourself.

Your link is from July.... a month prior to the actual bill being signed. If you had read my link you will see changes were made. And in case the math is too much for you $14.5 billion for oil is more than 3.3 billion for hydrogen.

An internal combustion engine can run off of hydrogen just like gasoline....how is that not energy? I agree oil and hydrogen are not the same, because your car does not run on oil. You can heat your house by burning hydrogen just like natural gas. You can launch the space shuttle into space by burning liquid hyrdogen (try that with powerlines or batteries).

And if you could just read a whole sentence... Sudan has no where near the oil of Iraq.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Geniere

Originally posted by: Wreckage?Wrong? As already stated above any high school kid can make hydrogen by passing an electric current through water. It's not about how easy it is to make hydrogen, it's about the current cost and use. Go back and read the WHOLE thread before you make veiled insults.

Also, I am not arguing the point that oil is cheap energy. Ever ones counter to hydrogen so far is that oil is cheaper. Oil is a nasty pollutant and it's running out. There needs to be a replacement, and I have heard none of you point out something better than hydrogen that exists.

Sorry that the facts don't support you?.

Sorry Wreckage you are incorrect. You seem to be unable to grasp the obvious fact that hydrogen does not exist except in chemical combination with other elements. It takes energy to free it from its chemical bond. There will always be, repeat always be, a net loss in the process. On this planet, there does not exist now, nor will there ever exist a means to produce hydrogen without a net loss of energy.

Several posters have stated that hydrogen may, in the future, prove to be a replacement for the automobile battery. That is correct; hydrogen can only be used as a means to store energy, it is not a source of energy.

When oil is pumped from a well and distilled to produce various fuels, there is a net gain in stored energy within those fuels.

Burning fossil fuels to produce hydrogen is just plain dumb. With the best-known processes of production, distribution and local storage, the total losses would be about 50%. Those losses would literally go up in smoke! The least polluting means to produce hydrogen is by fission and hopefully, in the near future, fusion power. Then and only then would hydrogen be considered a near non-polluting means of storing energy.

In blocking the construction of nuclear power plants, the environmentalists have been the biggest contributors to ?global warming?.

Sigh, I did state that currently you need to split hydrogen from water. I stated it several times. I used it in comparison to refining oil. I never suggested burning fossil fuels to create hydrogen. I suggested building Solar and Windmill farms to generate hydrogen. I already agreed that fossil fuels are cheap and easy, the point was that hydrogen can replace them once they are gone.

Hydrogen can be burned just like natural gas or gasoline as a direct replacement for those diminishing resources. Everyone makes it sound like 97 octane gets pumped out of the ground and into your car. As I have stated a lot of R&D money needs to be spent to improve the production and use of hydrogen (just like what is still being spent on oil).

 

[0marTheZealot]

All the research in the world won't change the fundemental facts regarding Hydrogen.

Look, you need to subsidize the production of hydrogen. The energy contained in hydrogen does not pay for the "refining."

The energy used to refine crude oil, by comparison, is negibile. Oil is an energy source. Hydrogen, chemically, is not.

Go get a background in science before you start advocating policy.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
All the research in the world won't change the fundemental facts regarding Hydrogen.

Look, you need to subsidize the production of hydrogen. The energy contained in hydrogen does not pay for the "refining."

The energy used to refine crude oil, by comparison, is negibile. Oil is an energy source. Hydrogen, chemically, is not.

Go get a background in science before you start advocating policy.

Sigh, and double sigh. Oil is running out and it is a major source of pollution. What will replace it? Go take a class in reading and then re-read this thread.

 

[DrPizza]

Wreckage, perhaps it is you who needs to re-read this thread.
I will allow you this point - at the point of use, hydrogen can replace gasoline.
Everyone in this forum agrees with that point.

The question is WHERE does the hydrogen come from? It's NOT a matter of technology. Oil is a SOURCE of energy. Wind is a SOURCE of energy. Solar is a SOURCE of energy. Hydrogen IS NOT, I repeat, IS NOT A SOURCE OF ENERGY
It never will be. It never can be. It's not a matter of technology. You need to produce hydrogen. You need energy from somewhere else to do it. You cannot use hydrogen to produce hydrogen.

Your idea of having solar and wind farms to produce hydrogen around the clock is a great idea. It appeals to the masses. We worship the power of the sun and wind. However, if you had actually read the article I referred to above, you would see that world-wide, we absolutely CAN NOT feasibly sustain our energy needs with solar and wind power.

Incidentally, since you referred to internal combustion of hydrogen: WRONG WAY TO DO IT!!!! There are inherent losses in an internal combustion engine that simply cannot be overcome. What this means: It's IMPOSSIBLE to get anywhere near to 100% efficiency with such an engine. Hence the research into fuel cells. - convert the hydrogen more directly to electricity. This gives a huge boost in efficiency. So, you may want to research a bit about fuel cells.

I'd have shut up a while ago and given up any hope of convincing you, but *sigh* it seems that there are too many stupid politicians who are completely unprepared to make policy decisions concerning future energy needs. I suspect the reason Dick Cheney met behind closed doors with energy executives and refused to release minutes from the meeting was to avoid embarassment after having to be explained things 10 times.

Anyway, I'll attempt one more analogy.