Article

2004-08-16 Home Front: Tech

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by mhw 2004-08-16 12:24:33 PM|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 MHW,

No, this technology is for electric generation, not storage.

One thing the article does not address is the fuel source:

1. Natural gas supplies in this country are becoming very tight. Just witness the rise of prices on NYMEX over the past few years, especially the winter spikes.

2. No one has come up with the magic answer as to the economical production and transport of hydrogen.

Posted by dreadnought 2004-08-16 12:38:58 PM|| 2004-08-16 12:38:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 âthe technology is for electricity storage not generationâ

According to the linked article, the FUEL-cells that the University of Houston is working on will use NATURAL GAS to generate electricity. Advanced nano materials mean fuel cells are getting smaller, more efficient, and operate at lower temperatures.

Hereâs another link on a coal burning fuel cell:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/ou-ppc052903.php
Project pairs coal with fuel cells to create cleaner, more efficient power

So fuel cells are used for generating power and are now looking very promising due to advances in material science.

Posted by Anonymous5032 2004-08-16 12:40:53 PM|| 2004-08-16 12:40:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 This is good news:
1) f*ck the Saooodis
2) decentralized power generation (less vulnerable to attack; more efficient)
3) generate hydrogen by solar electrolysis of water (store and burn later)
4) f*ck the Saooodis.

Posted by Spot 2004-08-16 1:32:55 PM|| 2004-08-16 1:32:55 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 decentralized power generation (less vulnerable to attack; more efficient)

Excellent idea in theory but as things stand today, regulatory burdens & entrenched bureaucracies will prevent it from ever happening on a large scale. I recall a few cases here in CA where folks were generating enough to essentially take themselves off of the grid but wanted to be connected as a backup. The power companies fought them tooth & nail citing safety & reliability concerns. IIRC one well-publicized case where the homeowner finally prevailed, required the expendature of upwards of six figures on additional equipment mandated by the power company as a condition of being tied into the grid & a like amount on legal fees & navigation of the regulatory process.

Posted by AzCat 2004-08-16 2:47:44 PM|| 2004-08-16 2:47:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 The cheapest way to distribute hydrogen is to not distribute it. Distribute the electricity and make the hydrogen on site through electrolysis of water.

I'm not sure that hydrogen use will ever make sense though... it's currently denser and easier to store energy in the form of syntetic fuels than it is to store hydrogen.

Regardless if they can figure out how to mass produce these thin film fuel cells cheaply their use would explode over night... especially since their efficiency is based on their material structure and not based on efficencies of scale which require power plants to generally be huge, expensive and located far away from where the power is used.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-08-16 2:49:14 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-08-16 2:49:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 AzCat, are you sure those lawsuits weren't over the fact that the power producing locations wanted to sell their power back to the grid (run their meter in reverse) and not that they wanted to produce their own power and use the grid as backup? There are many many homes and businesses that produce their own power all over the country (especially in california)... sounds like the lawsuit isn't quite what you made it out to be.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-08-16 2:52:03 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-08-16 2:52:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 decentralized power generation (less vulnerable to attack; more efficient)

ITYM "less efficient". Look up "economies of scale" and ponder the question of which is easier to move: electromotive force or the equivalent power in fuel.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-16 3:30:05 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-08-16 3:30:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Al-co-hol, folks. Lotsa hydrogen in booze. C6-H12-O6 IIRC, or is that sugar?

Posted by mojo 2004-08-16 3:33:38 PM|| 2004-08-16 3:33:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Where ya gonna get the alcohol? Sure, sugars and fermentation are cheap and easy, but then you gotta distill it, and THAT takes energy.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2004-08-16 4:04:53 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com] 2004-08-16 4:04:53 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 C6-H12-O6 IIRC, or is that sugar?

It's sugar. But lots o' hydrogen in that, too.

Posted by eLarson 2004-08-16 4:22:56 PM|| [http://larsonian.blogspot.com/] 2004-08-16 4:22:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Fuel Cells smaller than a pencil eraser

Fine, but who needs a hydrogen powered pencil?

generate hydrogen by solar electrolysis of water

Not efficient. Solar collection simply requires covering too much surface area with photovoltaics, mirrors, whatever. Nuclear is much more effective, although fusion would be even better.

The cheapest way to distribute hydrogen is to not distribute it. Distribute the electricity and make the hydrogen on site through electrolysis of water.

Nope. Transmission losses and economy of scale makes this totally unworkable. Imagine a car with water in the fuel tank and solar cells on the roof. I'd estimate about a one mile travel radius at best.

Al-co-hol, folks. Lotsa hydrogen in booze.

Nope. Growing all of that vegatative mass for subsequent digestion is way to labor intensive. So far, nuclear power generation coupled to bulk electrolysis facilities are the only viable option. This has been covered here many times before.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 4:53:46 PM|| 2004-08-16 4:53:46 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 More efficient: fuel cells are about twice as efficient at converting fuel to electricity as
combustion sources; no power loss during transmission; no need for transmission infrastructure; easily scalable.
Of course, cost and fuel are currently major impediments, but the market should eventually
make them competitive. The correct analogy is supercomputers vs. the web. The web is small, local, distributed and democratic.

Posted by Spot 2004-08-16 4:56:12 PM|| 2004-08-16 4:56:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 no power loss during transmission; no need for transmission infrastructure; easily scalable.

Yes, but where does the hydrogen to run these small fuel cells come from in the first place? How about the initial power needed to electrolycize the water to make the hydrogen?

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 5:33:47 PM|| 2004-08-16 5:33:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Zenster, you completely missed my point. I'm saying produce the hydrogen at peoples homes and at refueling stations through electrolsis of water. I'm not saying produce the hydrogen in the car itself! That doesn't even make sense... why would you take electricy that you generate from solar power and convert it at a loss to hydrogen only to be converted at a loss back again to electricity to run a car that needs electricity at that moment. That's obviously not what I was talking about...

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-08-16 6:07:43 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-08-16 6:07:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Also, the cost of generating electricity through solar power is not limited in the least by the surface area that the panels take up. The limiting factor is the cost to produce the panels, mostly in the cost of silicon. Once panels get down to about $1 a watt then solar electricity will be cheaper than nuclear, natural gas or any other form of power that we currently have. The new generation of plastic panels hitting the market now has the theoretical capability to get us down to 20 cents per watt over the next 5-10 years, assuming production yields work out the way they anticipate.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-08-16 6:12:25 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-08-16 6:12:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 It will come in the form of pellets, six days a week, do not try to story them.

Posted by Moshe Exxon 2004-08-16 7:51:56 PM|| 2004-08-16 7:51:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 The solar powered fuel cell car was merely a logical extension to the extreme as a joke.

I'm saying produce the hydrogen at peoples homes and at refueling stations through electrolsis of water. I'm not saying produce the hydrogen in the car itself!

You still have not answered the central question, DPA. Where does the power being transmitted to the homes for electrolysis come from? That remains a critical issue. I also dispute the validity of generating hydrogen at point of use.

Electrolysis is much like any other industrial process in that it depends upon economy of scale. Just the electrical transmission losses from distributing all that power to residential hydrogen generators makes your plan unworkable. Far better to have large cracking plants making the H2.

None of this addresses the tremendous obstacle of actually storing H2 prior to use. Spherical tanks are too space consuming, metal hydride sources are not effecient enough and tubular storage tanks with a better automotive form factor are not strong enough, although progress is being made.

Until politicians from both sides of the aisle wean themselves off the big oil campaign contribution teat, no significant progress is going to be made towards a H2 economy. Americans are most likely going to die in terrorist attacks as a result of this illegitimate conflit-of-interest. I can only hope they remember at election time.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 8:03:13 PM|| 2004-08-16 8:03:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Zen, my point is that it's far cheaper to distribute electricity and generate the hydrogen at site than it is to distribute the hydrogen itself. If you read my post again I state further that I'm not sure it makes sense to have a hydrogen based economy for other reasons though. Once again. My only point is that it's cheaper to distribute the electricity and make hydrogen on site than it is to distribute the hydrogen. Therefore the analysis that needs to be done is what is the cheapest way to generate electricity since the hydrogen economy is based on electricity being generated in the first place. In other words, we're saying the same thing.

Btw, electrolosys requires virtually free machinery. The only real cost is the cost of the electricity. The process is no more efficient in converting water to hydrogen on a large scale than it is on a small scale (unlike most other processes). Therefore the cost to distribute the hydrogen FAR exceeds the gains of centralized hydrogen production.

You, and virtually everyone else, must stop looking at hydrogen as a power source. It, like any other fuel, is just a battery that stores power that was provided in a previous reaction. In other words gas, diesel, hydrogen, ethanol and batteries are all really the same thing with different characteristics in one major respect... the efficiency and stability of how they hold the power stored in them. The earth has been storing energy in the form of oil for billions of years and we're tapping into that battery now to run our civilization.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-08-16 8:41:49 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-08-16 8:41:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 my point is that it's far cheaper to distribute electricity and generate the hydrogen at site than it is to distribute the hydrogen itself. If you read my post again I state further that I'm not sure it makes sense to have a hydrogen based economy for other reasons though. Once again. My only point is that it's cheaper to distribute the electricity and make hydrogen on site than it is to distribute the hydrogen.

Again, I must differ with you on this. We already have an excellent gaseous medium distribution network in place, our natural gas pipelines. It is safer and more effecient to store and distribute hydrogen just like we dispense gasoline. Consolidated storage would experience less loss due to leakage. Because of its low atomic weight, hydrogen is known as a "slippery" gas. Even fully functional valving and containment undergoes leakage due to this fact. Multiplying the number of storage containers (with individual residential generators) by several millionfold only increases loss rates.

I still take issue with your response about electrical distribution losses. A centralized bulk hydrogen generating facility will be able to accept high tension lines and realize more effecient conversion rates. The need for prefiltering and general water purification prior to electrolysis, replacement of cathode and anode elements, vessel inspection and certification plus a scad of other important safety issues all point towards bulk processing. The costs associated with service and maintenance of individual residential hydrogen generators would be tremendous. This disregards entirely the intrinsic safety issues involved. Imagine the risks involved if everybody had residential bulk storage gasoline tanks. It's much the same with hydrogen. I'm confident fire prevention authorities would take a dim view of hydrogen tanks in every house and external placement is not an option for high density dwellings.

I'm not at all convinced regarding residential hydrogen generation.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 9:41:09 PM|| 2004-08-16 9:41:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Zen, regarding hydrogen storage, I'd imagine that residential storage would require some type of permit etc. But filling stations should be a no-brainer... especially since they already store gasoline which is far more dangerous than hydrogen (due to hydrogen's tendency to evaporate quickly leaving it unavailable for burning, as opposed to gas...).

Regarding the distribution of hydrogen. It's a gas, not a liquid. It can't be distributed with our current system. The minimum that would be required would be to liquify the hydrogen by either extreme pressure or low temps... both would require complete overhauls of our system. Not to mention the fact that the entire system would need to be air tight as hydrogen is lighter than air and will float up and opposed to flow down with gracity when air is introduced.

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-08-16 10:05:58 PM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-08-16 10:05:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Regarding the distribution of hydrogen. It's a gas, not a liquid. It can't be distributed with our current system.

I beg to differ:

In the USA there is 720 km of hydrogen pipeline network and in Europe about 1,500 km. Over great distances, pipeline transport of hydrogen could be an effective way of transporting energy.

The energy loss in an electric power grid can be up to 7.5-8% of the energy it is transferring. This is about double of what is needed to feed gas through a pipeline of the same length.

Hydrogen pipes that are in use today are constructed of regular pipe steel, and operate under pressure at 10-20 bar, with a diameter of 25-30 cm. The oldest existing system is found in the Ruhr area. It is 210 km long and distributes hydrogen between 18 producers and consumers. This network has been in use for 50 years without any accidents. The longest hydrogen pipeline is 400 km and runs between France and Belgium.

With little or no changes, the majority of existing steel natural gas lines can be used to transport mixtures of natural gas and hydrogen. It is also possible, with certain modifications, to use pure hydrogen in certain existing natural gas lines. This depends on the carbon levels in the pipe metal. Newer gas pipelines such as those in the North Sea, have low carbon content and are therefore suitable for transporting hydrogen. If the speed is increased by a factor of 2.8 to compensate for hydrogen having 2.8 times lower energy density per volume than natural gas, the same amount of energy can be moved. The fact is that by using efficient hydrogen technology such as fuel cells, etc., the same amount of transported energy will yield increased output at final consumption.
EMPHASIS ADDED

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-16 11:04:12 PM|| 2004-08-16 11:04:12 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Come on Zen... 720 km of total piping is not a distribution system... you also neglected to add that the mixing with natural gas provides for only a 15% boost in the hydrogen content of the natural gas alone. Just admit you're wrong ;)

Posted by Damn_Proud_American 2004-08-17 12:01:56 AM|| [http://brighterfuture.blogspot.com] 2004-08-17 12:01:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#23 I was not refering to existing American hydrogen pipelines. I specifically mentioned our "natural gas" distribution network. What part of:

"It is also possible, with certain modifications, to use pure hydrogen in certain existing natural gas lines."

- was unclear? As you can see from the electrical transmission loss factor (7.5-8.0%), piping out hydrogen to point-of-sale makes a lot of sense.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-17 1:29:24 AM|| 2004-08-17 1:29:24 AM|| Front Page Top

18:00 Halfass Pete
17:02 Halfass Pete
15:01 Halfass Pete
17:23 Halfass Pete
17:15 Halfass Pete
14:10 Halfass Pete
13:37 Halfass Pete
12:38 Halfass Pete
12:27 Halfass Pete
11:26 Halfass Pete
10:11 Bulldog
10:11 Bulldog
19:08 Ernest Brown
17:36 Aris Katsaris
11:36 Ernest Brown
11:26 Ernest Brown
11:11 Aris Katsaris
10:16 Ernest Brown
10:13 Ernest Brown
08:42 Howard UK
07:12 Shipman
04:51 Bryan
01:43 Asedwich
01:29 Zenster