Hydrogen can fuel the future

[hendry]

markelvin said:

I sit here in smug superiority knowing I drive the worlds most efficient production car!!!!

You think? It is green, I'll give you that.

Edited by hendry on Tuesday 5th December 14:02

[markelvin]

No, that's the race car, covers about 200 miles a year.

The road car & daily drive is this, www.cars.com/features/2001overview/honda/images/01_honda_insight_386.jpg

www.familycar.com/RoadTests/HondaInsight/Images/Dash.jpg

Edited by markelvin on Tuesday 5th December 14:06

[emicen]

markelvin said:

I sit here in smug superiority knowing I drive the worlds most efficient production car!!!!

Go you.

We all sit here laughing at your incessant ramblings about the Insight with complete indifference.

You said our glorious planet is on the verge of disaster, proof?

[markelvin]

Jesus, how much proof do you need? Just look around you every day.

I'm not saying that the car is evil, simply that we need to be sensible about what we do, if we do take an active approach to these things we will be told what to do.

Would you rather HAVE to use public transport or have the option of driving a slightly less exciting, but still your own, car

[emicen]

markelvin said:

Jesus, how much proof do you need? Just look around you every day.

I'm not saying that the car is evil, simply that we need to be sensible about what we do, if we do take an active approach to these things we will be told what to do.

Would you rather HAVE to use public transport or have the option of driving a slightly less exciting, but still your own, car

What proof is around me? Or to answer your question, I'd settle for ANY scientific proof.

Why tackle the small issue of personal car emissions when US/Chinese/India industry is actually the main purpetrator of human emissions?

[markelvin]

That is very true, China is a BIG worry, but we all need to do something!

[apache]

emicen said:

Go you.

We all sit here laughing at your incessant ramblings about the Insight with complete indifference.

You said our glorious planet is on the verge of disaster, proof?

Well, loadsa people are telling us it is, people like Milibrand, Stern, Gore and Monbiot, people who have a lot of experience in the subject so it must be true. The govt are going to tax us sinners megabucks to save the planet and it would be akin to denying the Holocaust to voice disapproval. I'm going out to torch my car right now

[emicen]

apache said:

Well, loadsa people are telling us it is, people like Milibrand, Stern, Gore and Monbiot, people who have a lot of experience in the subject so it must be true. The govt are going to tax us sinners megabucks to save the planet and it would be akin to denying the Holocaust to voice disapproval. I'm going out to torch my car right now

You know for half a sentence there I thought you were being serious

....and breathe

[GreenV8S]

markelvin said:

That's OK then, well keep burning fossil fuel & not worry about it!!!!

It's about minmising the impact on the environment that man causes, we live on a fantastic planet, that is on the verge of irreparble damage.

Wind turbines, water turbines, solar panels produce zero CO2 in operation.

I don't say don't worry about it, but I think a lot of people are leaping to the conclusion that there is a huge global man-made problem asociated with CO2 production from fossil fuel burning, and as far as I can see there is no reliable evidence to show this. Your comment about "on the verge of irreparble damage" is not unusual but there is no evidence to show that this is the case. It's pure speculation and wishfull thinking.

All those alternative power sources may be CO2 neutral in operation but that doesn't mean they're CO2 neutral over their entire life or that the total environmental impact is negligeable. It seems to be an article of faith that fossil fuel consumption is destroying the planet and must be stopped, and that's rubbish. And also an article of faith that the alternative renewable energy sources are harmless to the environment, and that's rubbish too.

[andytk]

markelvin said:

1 gal of petrol consumes 32500w/h of energy to produce, this will take a Honda Insight 75miles on average.

1.53kg of H2 will take a Honda FCX the same distance FCX, BUT the hydrogen takes 173600w/h of energy to produce.

Granted if we rely on current technologies to produce the hydrogen then it would appear to be a dead end, using over 5x more energy to produce than the equivalent amount of petrol.

HOWEVER, the hydrogen relies on electricity to break down the atoms, this electricity can be obtained from one of the mainy reneable energy sources that are already proven, therefore the real word impact, if the proper investment is allowed, is zero, effectivley water in = water out.

And you're not bother in the slightest that it will be at least 5x more expensive (minimum) than petrol???

I know I sure am.

Andy

[hendry]

andytk said:

markelvin said:

1 gal of petrol consumes 32500w/h of energy to produce, this will take a Honda Insight 75miles on average.

1.53kg of H2 will take a Honda FCX the same distance FCX, BUT the hydrogen takes 173600w/h of energy to produce.

Granted if we rely on current technologies to produce the hydrogen then it would appear to be a dead end, using over 5x more energy to produce than the equivalent amount of petrol.

HOWEVER, the hydrogen relies on electricity to break down the atoms, this electricity can be obtained from one of the mainy reneable energy sources that are already proven, therefore the real word impact, if the proper investment is allowed, is zero, effectivley water in = water out.

And you're not bother in the slightest that it will be at least 5x more expensive (minimum) than petrol???

I know I sure am.

Andy

Where are you establishing the cost from?

Our price for petrol is governed by Gordon Brown, who could make it cost what he wanted. And remember that the true cost of driving is likely to encompass more than just the refuelling cost (think tax discs, CC, road charhing etc.).

[markelvin]

andytk said:

markelvin said:

1 gal of petrol consumes 32500w/h of energy to produce, this will take a Honda Insight 75miles on average.

1.53kg of H2 will take a Honda FCX the same distance FCX, BUT the hydrogen takes 173600w/h of energy to produce.

Granted if we rely on current technologies to produce the hydrogen then it would appear to be a dead end, using over 5x more energy to produce than the equivalent amount of petrol.

HOWEVER, the hydrogen relies on electricity to break down the atoms, this electricity can be obtained from one of the mainy reneable energy sources that are already proven, therefore the real word impact, if the proper investment is allowed, is zero, effectivley water in = water out.

And you're not bother in the slightest that it will be at least 5x more expensive (minimum) than petrol???

I know I sure am.

Andy

It will not be 5x more expensive if we used renewable electricity to carry out the eletcrolosys.

The new breed of hydrogen plants have got the efficiency up to mean they use just under twice the power of the equivalent amount of petrol, and it's still early days yet.

[andytk]

hendry said:

andytk said:

markelvin said:

1 gal of petrol consumes 32500w/h of energy to produce, this will take a Honda Insight 75miles on average.

1.53kg of H2 will take a Honda FCX the same distance FCX, BUT the hydrogen takes 173600w/h of energy to produce.

Granted if we rely on current technologies to produce the hydrogen then it would appear to be a dead end, using over 5x more energy to produce than the equivalent amount of petrol.

HOWEVER, the hydrogen relies on electricity to break down the atoms, this electricity can be obtained from one of the mainy reneable energy sources that are already proven, therefore the real word impact, if the proper investment is allowed, is zero, effectivley water in = water out.

And you're not bother in the slightest that it will be at least 5x more expensive (minimum) than petrol???

I know I sure am.

Andy

Where are you establishing the cost from?

Our price for petrol is governed by Gordon Brown, who could make it cost what he wanted. And remember that the true cost of driving is likely to encompass more than just the refuelling cost (think tax discs, CC, road charhing etc.).

Christ, you lot are thick.

1kg H2 = 37kWh at 100% efficiency. But no one can do it better than 75% so call it 49kWh
Cheapo leccy at, say, 4p per kWh

Ergo, 1kg of H2 = £1.96

1kg H2 = about 4 litres of petrol

petro is about 25p/litre (pre tax)

So petrol = £1.00 per 4 litres.

So that makes H2 about twice as much but as mentioned thats before you include (huge) hydrogen capital costs and compression/liquefaction costs are taken into account. Seeing as these will (as a very conservative estimate) double the H2 costs that makes H2 almost £4 per kg.

which make it 4 times more expensive than petrol. And if you think the Chancellor won't find a way to make up this tax loss if we all start using it, then I'd say you were smoking crack.

And I don't buy any arguments about cheaper compressors/liquifiers as these are known technology and have been around for donkeys. We know how much they cost.

Plus note that I've used a cheap estimate for power, and you've only got a 25% margin to improve the fundamental efficiency of the electrolysis unit.

Still think its a good idea?

Andy

[LongQ]

andytk said:

Still think its a good idea?

Andy

As a consumer - no. I know fuel will always be taxed to discourage freedom of movement in some way.

As a potential researcher and developer I would say YES because I could have an entire career at the tax payer's expense without the need to produce anything worthwhile in my lifetime! Fantastic!

No need to worry about the infrastructure costs by the way - that comes out of another revenue stream as Brown and the regulator have just explained. The green taxes pay for some enormous windmill thingies that sometime work and they don't expect the developers to tidy up the ground level mess when the things need replacing in 20 years time. So that's good.

Then when they finally realise that the 'fuel' has to be shifted from where it may be produced to where it is needed they agree to let the private sector pay for it by raising income per unit. From the consumer. That's not a tax of course, oh no.

Nor will it be costed into the cost per unit for windpower without which the need for the development would probably not arise.

Nor will it create an ever greater negative impact on the environment through which these conduits of power will pass. Especially the one that will need to be built from, wait for it .... Scotland!

No, all of thses things will be quietly swept under the green carpet.

What's a few billion to us folk when the economy is doing so well?

I wonder if the budget estimates for this budding fiasco are as accurate as the ones for the Olympics. And of coure the Dome. And a few major computer projects, the cost of the war in Iraq, the EU budget rebate success, etc.

[Pigeon]

One approach for generating hydrogen which I believe is receiving some attention is to use solar energy and a suitable catalyst or similar to crack water. I have a figure of 38% floating around my head for efficiency of conversion of solar to chemical energy but I have no idea where that comes from or how accurate it is. If it works, it makes for a cheap low-maintenance hydrogen generation plant, a bunch of flat tanks in a field. Or you could make flexible plastic ones and float them in the sea.

In fact that might be a good idea because you have the problem of separating the hydrogen from the oxygen, which would have to be done in some central plant; everything upstream of that plant would be at risk of going bang in an entertaining manner. Bit of a problem on land. At sea you just have to get there in time to scoop up the free fish.

[love machine]

andytk said:

Stephen White said:

I haven't seen so much pseudo-scientific, negative drivel since, well, since the last time the subject of Hydrogen came up on this forum... Everyone who has gone to the trouble of explaining how expensive Hydrogen is to produce using current techniques, is wasting everyone's time: obviously, worldwide electricity production has to be transformed into something efficient and sustainable - presumably, mass-scale solar production in the world's major deserts. Nobel-laureate Chemist Rick Smalley - a specialist in world energy production issues - calculated that about 4% of the area of the major equatorial deserts would be ample to supply far more than even the anticipated power needs for all human industry.

Yeah, at 100% efficiency. And you're talking about laying out a few hundred thousand square km of solar panels at 15% efficiency, with a capital cost of 50 times the world GDP.

The point about consuming fuels is that they are relatively cheap. Once they get beyond a certain price no one can afford to buy them. This is why your average 14th century peasant didn't own a horse. They were simply too damned expensive (you need land for fodder crop to feed your horse).

Once fossil fuel gets to the point where you need more energy to get it out the ground than you get back from it, there is no point extracting it.

Its the same with your desert proposal. Once it gets too energy/labour intensive, then there is no point, as no one will be able to afford the energy being produced.

On another note, you might like to try and work out how much energy we can produce from non nuclear sources in the UK.
It is claimed that a good yeild of biomass from one hectare is about 10,000kg per season. Now if you assume this is wood like, then that would be 50,000kWh per season. Or an average of 137kWh per day. Which if you can magically turn into electricity is enough for about 15 houses.
Anyone know how many homes we've got and how much (set aside) land we've got.

Andy

What are solar panels made from and how do you get it from there where you find it to being stuck where you want it under the cloudy sky?

I'm aware of my solar panel stuff and you don't find them in rocks called "Solar Panel Measures"

Start thinking about the whole picture and then you're getting there. Same applies to fancy catalysts, etc, etc. I may sound like a layman but I'm pretty far from it. Unless we have some Adam Hart Davis style leap of creative faith, it isn't happening and we need some nuclear fission fast breeder reactors.

[andytk]

Pigeon said:

One approach for generating hydrogen which I believe is receiving some attention is to use solar energy and a suitable catalyst or similar to crack water.

The aformentioned job for life researchers are working on it, but as with all hydrogen schemes stupidly big capital costs seem to be killing it off.

The problem is you don't get 'owt for 'nowt. hydrogen is just an energy carrier, so you'll always have cost of production+cost of distribution.

If someone mangaged to get a cheap, medium efficiency method of producing hydrogen, then we'd all be running off it in no time, as you would effectively have invented the worlds cheapest solar power.
But solar energy only lands on earth at about 1.5kWh per m2 per day, so methinks you'll ALWAYS have capital cost issues simply due to the size of the kit needed to capture decent amounts of energy.

Andy

[apache]

A simplistic view is the cleaner/more efficent the process the more costly it'll be. Hence coal is pretty dirty and not too efficient but pretty cheap. It all has payback one way or another

[hyphen]

This hydrogen future is still on way it seems, slowly: First Shell station with Hydrogen Fuel opens on the m25 near Cobham, Surrey.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/features/m25-hydro...