Hydrogen

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
Then why do I have to keep pointing things out for you. You doubted the hydrogen internal combustion engine, so I posted a link for you. You doubted the hydrogen economy, so I posted a link for you. I've shown at least 2 ways you can get hydrogen without electricity. I have already stated we are talking about the future of energy without fossil fuels, yet all you can talk about is fossil fuels.

I have broke it down into clear and simple terms yet you still are not getting it. That's ok. PowerEngineer seems to be on the same page now. I will work on Calin next.

The reason you feel the need to repeatedly point these things out is that you refuse to address what I say. Instead, you just attack your own strawman argument. Your own understanding of the scale of and ability to change are misshapen, to say the least, yet you have thus far absolutely refused to even pretend to listen to anything anyone else has stated here.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
PowerEngineer seems to be on the same page now.

I think it's safer to say that I've managed to frame my thoughts in a way that makes sense to you. I'm still on "my" page. Our sources of energy are the bigger pollution problems. Shifting from gasoline to hydrogen only shifts the location of the pollution unless we produce it with something other than fossil fuels. Possible alternate sources of energy currently all have significant disadvantages primarily in cost but also in uncertainty and environmental impact. These have to be overcome before our society can move on from being a fossil fuel economy.

I think that several of the other posters that you've been jousting with (including Calin) have been trying to make some of these same points.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: Wreckage
PowerEngineer seems to be on the same page now.

I think it's safer to say that I've managed to frame my thoughts in a way that makes sense to you. I'm still on "my" page. Our sources of energy are the bigger pollution problems. Shifting from gasoline to hydrogen only shifts the location of the pollution unless we produce it with something other than fossil fuels. Possible alternate sources of energy currently all have significant disadvantages primarily in cost but also in uncertainty and environmental impact. These have to be overcome before our society can move on from being a fossil fuel economy.

I think that several of the other posters that you've been jousting with (including Calin) have been trying to make some of these same points.

I don't disagree with any of that. It will be a long time before we get rid of our dependence on fossil fuels. Hydrogen is just one of many steps. It's clean, abundant and already in use in many industries. I'm not suggesting that our whole energy economy will switch over to this overnight. It could be 50 years or more. But it is possible, it would free us on foreign sources for our energy and it's virtually pollution free.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: Wreckage
PowerEngineer seems to be on the same page now.

I think it's safer to say that I've managed to frame my thoughts in a way that makes sense to you. I'm still on "my" page. Our sources of energy are the bigger pollution problems. Shifting from gasoline to hydrogen only shifts the location of the pollution unless we produce it with something other than fossil fuels. Possible alternate sources of energy currently all have significant disadvantages primarily in cost but also in uncertainty and environmental impact. These have to be overcome before our society can move on from being a fossil fuel economy.

I think that several of the other posters that you've been jousting with (including Calin) have been trying to make some of these same points.

I don't disagree with any of that. It will be a long time before we get rid of our dependence on fossil fuels. Hydrogen is just one of many steps. It's clean, abundant and already in use in many industries. I'm not suggesting that our whole energy economy will switch over to this overnight. It could be 50 years or more. But it is possible, it would free us on foreign sources for our energy and it's virtually pollution free.

That's the part you're missing: it's NOT abundant. For the most part, there is virtually zero hydrogen that hasn't already been burned. Yes, I realize there is a lot of hydrogen dioxide on the planet... but not pure hydrogen. I can make the exact same claim that there is virtually a limitless supply of gasoline on this planet. After all, gasoline is just carbon and hydrogen. It's simply a matter of organic chemistry

(although, they'd prefer to start with ethanol and build up from there. That bring back such bad memories... instructions on the top of Chem 451 and 452's tests: "assume you are on a deserted island with a very large vineyard from which you produce your own ethanol and were fortunate to have a raft float up with any necessary reagents and lab apparatus. Synthesize the following:")

Why don't we? Because we can't do the process without using more energy than we gain.

 

[DrPizza]

Besides, I was simply stating that the effects of water vapor emissions are largely unstudied. The thrust of scientific inquiry has been towards determining the effects of all other emissions.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any point to studying water vapor emissions. Compared to the water vapor emissions from the ocean, man-made water vapor emissions are pretty negligible. (Look at how much water came from Hurricane Katrina; while you're at it, you can include the water in the river, which came from rain upstream, which came from water vapor.)

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any point to studying water vapor emissions. Compared to the water vapor emissions from the ocean, man-made water vapor emissions are pretty negligible. (Look at how much water came from Hurricane Katrina; while you're at it, you can include the water in the river, which came from rain upstream, which came from water vapor.)

Well, here's how I see it. Assume that gasoline is pure n-heptane (C7H16). Assume specific gravity ~0.8. This gives 6.7 pounds of heptane, 16% of which is water (about 1 pound). All very rough estimates with lots of rounding error, but it gives a nice round number so I'm going to run with it.

I can't recall the worldwide demand for oil off the top of my head (been too long since I read my oil mags), but let's say 1 billion gallons of gasoline burned per day. This means we generate a billion pounds of water vapor per day. While this may be pretty small relative to evaporation and such, it most surely affects the equilibrium of the planet's water cycles. I've actually read articles speculating that the man-made addition of water to this cycle is responsible for the recent increase in hurricane intensity worldwide. I'm hesitant to accept this, but I'm sure it has some effect. If worldwide output of water vapor continues to increase exponentially (most models predict a doubling every ~20 years), then I wouldn't be surprised if the contribution became very significant.

Point being I guess is that even the 'non-polluting' option of combusting hydrogen has some unquantifiable effect on the environment - that much is for sure. What the effect is will never be known for sure due to the complexity of the system. In the end, I guess, the point is that it's much, much more logical to simply use fuel cells than hydrogen combustion engines. Since distilled water is necessary for fuel cell catalytic polymer membranes (e.g. Nafion), it shouldn't be burned away anyway - it can simply be stored on-board. The fuel cell car I built simply had gas tanks separated by a Nafion membrane. I ran electricity into a circuit and it moved water from a cylinder and split it into the two gas cylinders. Then, you remove the current, flip a switch, and they recombine with a side of electrical output. The product of the reaction never leaves the car. Indeed, performance of these membranes is enhanced by continuous wetting.

Anyway, /rant.

 

[DrPizza]

An average hurricane precipitates about 20000 million tons of water a day

That's 40 trillion pounds from one weather system, albeit a very large one.
While there aren't always hurricanes out there, I'd bet the total amount of water vapor due to evaporation exceeds the 40 trillion pound figure. (I'm just too tired to google and try to come up with a more accurate number)
1 billion pounds would be 1/40,000th of that. I don't deny that it may have some small influence on the equilibrium of the planet's water cycles, but I really don't think it would be that significant.

Plus, from feedback in the system - more water vapor in the air means more clouds means less sunlight getting through means less evaporation... (just a thought)

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
In a fuel cell, there is no water vapor product.

Besides, I was simply stating that the effects of water vapor emissions are largely unstudied. The thrust of scientific inquiry has been towards determining the effects of all other emissions.

Sorry, I overreacted.
Yes, the effects of water vapors emmisions are largely unstudied (but I think they add to any kind of problems other emissions create, and might create their own problems as well).
And a fuel cell transform hydrogen and oxygen in water too. Just at a (much bigger) efficiency than the typical passenger car combustion engine. If you just need a web page, here you go

Once again, please excuse me

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

I don't disagree with any of that. It will be a long time before we get rid of our dependence on fossil fuels. Hydrogen is just one of many steps. It's clean, abundant and already in use in many industries. I'm not suggesting that our whole energy economy will switch over to this overnight. It could be 50 years or more. But it is possible, it would free us on foreign sources for our energy and it's virtually pollution free.

The use of hydrogen is clean, abundant and pollution free. The production of it it is not (yet).
I don't know what would replace the crude oil/natural gas-based life (that is cars, house heating, and so on). Industry would be able to move to something else somewhat faster - if enough economic incentive is given. Huge ships could run on nuclear reactors if the need would arise. Nuclear power plant could generate electricity. Bigger and smaller dams could be built. Some places are able to use geothermal energy (Iceland is the only one I know of).
But what would replace the gasoline and diesel? Gasoline can be replaced by ethanol/methanol, diesel by biodiesel. However, bio-production of them would use too much land otherwise usable by food industry.
Some alga-based plants in the oceans could be a solution - but sometime on the oceans there are fiery storms.
However, having cheap or free electricity, hydrogen is simpler to obtain than anything else that can run in current designs of oil-based internal combustion engines (not in current engines, unlike biodiesel and ethanol, but little research would be needed).
I hope better battery technology comes out, and then battery-based cars would rule the road. One can have "tanks" of batteries that he changes at "battery stations", the way old time transports worked (changing horses at stations).
However, storing hydrogen as liquid in a car's fuel tank is impossible (at least for me as I am using my car several times a month). Even the Space Shuttle or space rockets are constantly refueled until launch, to replace the hydrogen lost by evaporation.

This is the sad truth - there is no way to generate energy that is more compact (both per volume, per weight and per horsepower) than gasoline/diesel and internal combustion engines, in regards to the needs (weight, volume and cost) of an automobile. Will this change? If the fuel prices remains the same, I bet it won't. However, the increase in oil price (and more research I hope) would get us there.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: PowerEngineer

Originally posted by: Wreckage
PowerEngineer seems to be on the same page now.

I think it's safer to say that I've managed to frame my thoughts in a way that makes sense to you. I'm still on "my" page. Our sources of energy are the bigger pollution problems. Shifting from gasoline to hydrogen only shifts the location of the pollution unless we produce it with something other than fossil fuels. Possible alternate sources of energy currently all have significant disadvantages primarily in cost but also in uncertainty and environmental impact. These have to be overcome before our society can move on from being a fossil fuel economy.

I think that several of the other posters that you've been jousting with (including Calin) have been trying to make some of these same points.

I don't disagree with any of that. It will be a long time before we get rid of our dependence on fossil fuels. Hydrogen is just one of many steps. It's clean, abundant and already in use in many industries. I'm not suggesting that our whole energy economy will switch over to this overnight. It could be 50 years or more. But it is possible, it would free us on foreign sources for our energy and it's virtually pollution free.

There is a difference between energy and oil. The flagship of the energy that is used in transportation is oil (diesel to be more specific). It runs the trains, it runs the ships, it runs the trucks. Gasoline runs the passenger's own transportation means (cars).
As long as energy (electricity if you will) is produced from gas/oil imported, your country is dependent on both oil AND energy from overseas. If the energy would be produced at home from local resources (nuclear, coal, wind, hydroelectric, waves energy, tide energy, solar, ...) you would only be dependent on foreign sources for oil, not for energy.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Besides, I was simply stating that the effects of water vapor emissions are largely unstudied. The thrust of scientific inquiry has been towards determining the effects of all other emissions.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think there's any point to studying water vapor emissions. Compared to the water vapor emissions from the ocean, man-made water vapor emissions are pretty negligible. (Look at how much water came from Hurricane Katrina; while you're at it, you can include the water in the river, which came from rain upstream, which came from water vapor.)

I can ignore some of the water from the oceans when studying the effects in Moscow, or in some or other city from the Saudi deserts (as it don't rain very often there).
While the emissions of water on a bridge over ocean can be ignored, the ones in a place then don't benefit as much from near water might be interesting

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

In a hydrogen combustion engine, the amount of water produced may very well be greater than that in a gasoline engine.

Agree on that.
However, I read somewhere the comparation between a current gasoline car (with engine-powered servosteering pump and brake) and a "imaginary" (no actual testbed existed) fuel cell/electric motors -based hydrogen car. The water production was a bit more on the gasoline car.
Of course, it isn't fair to compare them this way (current production technology against future research technology), but the result was still there.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Wreckage
The point was not the number of links. The point was for you to click on the links and educate yourself.

I've spent the last six years of my life educating myself on this and similar subjects. So, unless you already have a PhD in chemical engineering, I doubt you have any room to tell me to educate myself.

Then why do I have to keep pointing things out for you. You doubted the hydrogen internal combustion engine, so I posted a link for you. You doubted the hydrogen economy, so I posted a link for you. I've shown at least 2 ways you can get hydrogen without electricity. I have already stated we are talking about the future of energy without fossil fuels, yet all you can talk about is fossil fuels.

I have broke it down into clear and simple terms yet you still are not getting it. That's ok. PowerEngineer seems to be on the same page now. I will work on Calin next.

Now let's prepare a common statement regarding this hydrogen thing

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: Calin

Now let's prepare a common statement regarding this hydrogen thing

Best plan I have heard so far....

 

[DrPizza]

Common statement, first draft:

1. In the future, we'll fill our cars at hydrogen stations, rather than gas stations
2. Our cars might be internal combustion engines burning hydrogen, or they may utilize fuel cells.
3. We need to find a source of energy to replace oil.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Common statement, first draft:

1. In the future, we'll fill our cars at hydrogen stations, rather than gas stations
2. Our cars might be internal combustion engines burning hydrogen, or they may utilize fuel cells.
3. We need to find a source of energy to replace oil.

That sounds about right. I think the second part may end up seeing both in use.

As for the original question "why is it so costly" I think this mainly has to do with a lack of R&D funding and wide spread acceptance. As new technologies come along, current technologies get refined and more people start using hydrogen the cost will come down. Advances in clean and plentiful electricity generation should help this. Who knows maybe someday you will have a hydrogen bioreactor sitting next to your compost heap.

 

[DrPizza]

Incidentally, a source of energy that hasn't been mentioned is the methane at the bottom of the ocean; lots and lots and lots of it, IIRC, off the Atlantic coast.

 

[Pulsar]

Hrm, I read through this and it is interesting to say the least, but I have a gut feeling that wreckage doesn't get it.

Wreckage, all the energy production at this point aside from nuclear and fossil fuel cost MORE to make than they will give out in their lifetime.

Solar cells, hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel, wind, tidal, and geothermal all have the same issue. You simply cannot make a solar cell and use that electricity to make another solar cell, because the first solar cell will not create enough in it's lifetime to do it.

Gasoline and Nuclear power are the two power sources that currently do not have that limitation. Oil costs less energy to refine than you get out of it when you burn the finished product - the process is self sustaining.

Do some research. There are NOT alternative fuels aside from nuclear power and gasoline that currently supply enough power to be self-sustaining and supply everyone. You could potentially use nuclear power to generate hydrogen, but nuclear has some pretty nasty by-products, as we all know.

(I know it's not technically perfect but I'm trying to explain it to wreckage in simpler terms...)

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Common statement, first draft:

1. In the future, we'll fill our cars at hydrogen stations, rather than gas stations
2. Our cars might be internal combustion engines burning hydrogen, or they may utilize fuel cells.
3. We need to find a source of energy to replace oil.

I could add this:
4. Or our cars will run on batteries (rechargable ones).

Why would I say that? There is no known battery technology yet that is as good as gasoline (weight/volume/capacity/power), and none can be loaded as fast as a fuel tank is refueled. Changing unloaded batteries for loaded ones could work (even if their weight is significant), but there are no cars that would have similar space to store batteries.
However, I heard of some "fast-rechargeable" batteries that are able to load some 75% of their capacity in less than 5 minutes. If these will have a good proportion between power/capacity/cost/volume/weight/cost, they could replace some of the internal combustion engines (you could slowly fill your car's battery at home and at work, and you could "instantly" fill them at an electricity station.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: LsDPulsar
Hrm, I read through this and it is interesting to say the least, but I have a gut feeling that wreckage doesn't get it.

Wreckage, all the energy production at this point aside from nuclear and fossil fuel cost MORE to make than they will give out in their lifetime.

Solar cells, hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel, wind, tidal, and geothermal all have the same issue. You simply cannot make a solar cell and use that electricity to make another solar cell, because the first solar cell will not create enough in it's lifetime to do it.

Gasoline and Nuclear power are the two power sources that currently do not have that limitation. Oil costs less energy to refine than you get out of it when you burn the finished product - the process is self sustaining.

Do some research. There are NOT alternative fuels aside from nuclear power and gasoline that currently supply enough power to be self-sustaining and supply everyone. You could potentially use nuclear power to generate hydrogen, but nuclear has some pretty nasty by-products, as we all know.

(I know it's not technically perfect but I'm trying to explain it to wreckage in simpler terms...)

Ethanol and biodiesel might be self-sustainable - but by some calculation I've seen, they are certainly not able to sustain everyone

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: LsDPulsar
Hrm, I read through this and it is interesting to say the least, but I have a gut feeling that wreckage doesn't get it.

Wreckage, all the energy production at this point aside from nuclear and fossil fuel cost MORE to make than they will give out in their lifetime.

Solar cells, hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel, wind, tidal, and geothermal all have the same issue. You simply cannot make a solar cell and use that electricity to make another solar cell, because the first solar cell will not create enough in it's lifetime to do it.

Gasoline and Nuclear power are the two power sources that currently do not have that limitation. Oil costs less energy to refine than you get out of it when you burn the finished product - the process is self sustaining.

Do some research. There are NOT alternative fuels aside from nuclear power and gasoline that currently supply enough power to be self-sustaining and supply everyone. You could potentially use nuclear power to generate hydrogen, but nuclear has some pretty nasty by-products, as we all know.

(I know it's not technically perfect but I'm trying to explain it to wreckage in simpler terms...)

:roll: You did not read this thread. I will try to explain it to you in simple terms. IN THE FUTURE. Now go get in line for gasoline and breath the fresh air from your tailpipe and re-read the WHOLE thread, where I discuss the long term plans for hydrogen.

 

[f95toli]

Originally posted by: LsDPulsar


Solar cells, hydrogen, ethanol, biodiesel, wind, tidal, and geothermal all have the same issue. You simply cannot make a solar cell and use that electricity to make another solar cell, because the first solar cell will not create enough in it's lifetime to do it.

Gasoline and Nuclear power are the two power sources that currently do not have that limitation. Oil costs less energy to refine than you get out of it when you burn the finished product - the process is self sustaining.

I think I must side with wreckage on this one.
First of all. I can't see why you wouldn't be able to get enough energy from a solar cell to build a new solar cell? A solar cell is basically a compromise between efficienty (the most efficient solar cells use rare elements and a lot of energy is needed for the fabrication) and cost. Even if the efficienty is only about 1% you would still get enought energy to build a new solar cell if you wait long enough. Solar energy is "free" and s solar cell can in theory produce energy for an eternity, the production of electricity does not deteriate the solar cell.

Secondly, there are other energy sources. In Sweden we get most of our electricity from hydroelectric plants (and that has been true for a long time, by grand-grand father made a living building hydroelecric plants). For the rest we use nuclear power.
There are coal plants as well but they are only used as backup and extra power(for very cold winter days).
In Denmark they get a substantial amount of their energy from wind power. Iceland gets most (all?) of their energy from geothermal energy (which is very cheap) etc.

Personally I would like to see more money go to research on fusion. Once we manage to build working fusion plants there will be plenty of safe energy that can be used to produce hydrogen that we can use in our cars.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: f95toli

Personally I would like to see more money go to research on fusion. Once we manage to build working fusion plants there will be plenty of safe energy that can be used to produce hydrogen that we can use in our cars.

You realize that even a fusion plant is not producing totally safe energy? While the "fusion fuel" and "fusion products" are hydrogen (maybe deuterium or tritium) and helium, the process produces some high energy particles. While the fission-produced particles are alot harder to protect against and are more dangerous, fusion is not absolutely clean or totally safe.

 

[piasabird]

The hydrogen we want to use for cars is a compressed liquid. The process of cooling the hydrogen or converting it into a liquid is what is most expensive.

You can separate water into Oxygen and Hydrogen with a couple of solar panels, but then you have Oxygen to get rid of. Gases like this have to be kept separate. You have to worry about backflow, pressure regulation and other problems. I read an article on a project to do this in a back yard project in the "Home Power" magazine.

There have been a lot of Interesting articles in this magazine:

http://www.homepower.com/

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Calin
You realize that even a fusion plant is not producing totally safe energy? While the "fusion fuel" and "fusion products" are hydrogen (maybe deuterium or tritium) and helium, the process produces some high energy particles. While the fission-produced particles are alot harder to protect against and are more dangerous, fusion is not absolutely clean or totally safe.

No power source is perfectly safe. Coal and oil plants can explode, too. Safety is a relative term, generally looked at from a risk-factor perspective: fusion has lower risk factors than fission (if and when it's successfully accomplished, anyway ).

Originally posted by: piasabird
The hydrogen we want to use for cars is a compressed liquid. The process of cooling the hydrogen or converting it into a liquid is what is most expensive.

You can separate water into Oxygen and Hydrogen with a couple of solar panels, but then you have Oxygen to get rid of. Gases like this have to be kept separate. You have to worry about backflow, pressure regulation and other problems. I read an article on a project to do this in a back yard project in the "Home Power" magazine.

There have been a lot of Interesting articles in this magazine:

http://www.homepower.com/

Keeping the gases separate is relatively straightforward, as the membranes and related catalysts involved in this separation have been researched very thoroughly. The problem is that one solar panel can cause the separation, but not in any sufficient quantity, and certainly not in the quantities needed to power a typical car for any length of time. To separate a meaningful amount of hydrogen, you need exactly one metric buttload of solar panels.