Hydrogen availability
Discussion
ruggedscotty said:
Oh people are not going to use hydrocarbons.... we need something fast...
Ahhhh Hydrogen, lets make hyrdogen and sell it for hydrogen engines.
we can still make internal combustion engines run on hydrogen, yasssss ! we get to service them, the need oil and filters and lots of money spent on them can keep our dealers happy busy and rich.
Fuel companies we can make the car you make the fuel, you get to keep your refulling stations and profitable forecourt shops M&S Waitrose branded outlets.... yessssss !
So how do we make hydrogen, electrolysis... thats energy intensive ? yeah but we have plenty of water.... we need to compress it transport it and sell it... so we keep our distribution.... rubs hands together this is the fuel to save.... fuel stations and car makers...
energy intensive to make hydrogen, its got to be distribututed, and it has a low energy density...
it is just sooooo bad...
battery has this so beaten before its even out the pen.
Better not tell the government then: their plans for getting to Net Zero include massive conversion of the natural gas system to hydrogen. The majority of said hydrogen is to be manufactured by steam reforming of natural gas (today's standard process) but with carbon capture and storage which is proving troublesome to make viable. "Challenging" is putting it mildly.Ahhhh Hydrogen, lets make hyrdogen and sell it for hydrogen engines.
we can still make internal combustion engines run on hydrogen, yasssss ! we get to service them, the need oil and filters and lots of money spent on them can keep our dealers happy busy and rich.
Fuel companies we can make the car you make the fuel, you get to keep your refulling stations and profitable forecourt shops M&S Waitrose branded outlets.... yessssss !
So how do we make hydrogen, electrolysis... thats energy intensive ? yeah but we have plenty of water.... we need to compress it transport it and sell it... so we keep our distribution.... rubs hands together this is the fuel to save.... fuel stations and car makers...
energy intensive to make hydrogen, its got to be distribututed, and it has a low energy density...
it is just sooooo bad...
battery has this so beaten before its even out the pen.
As of 2020, the majority of hydrogen (?95%) is produced from fossil fuels by steam reforming of natural gas, partial oxidation of methane, and coal gasification.
In steam-methane reforming, methane reacts with steam under 3–25 bar pressure (1 bar = 14.5 psi) in the presence of a catalyst to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide. Steam reforming is endothermic—that is, heat must be supplied to the process for the reaction to proceed.
relatively small amount of CO2.... endothermic.... requires heat ?
very energy intensive for a low yield fuel... ?
Disadvantages of Hydrogen Energy
Hydrogen Energy is Expensive. Electrolysis and steam reforming, the two main processes of hydrogen extraction, are extremely expensive. ...
Storage Complications. ...
It's Not the Safest Source of Energy. ...
Tricky to Move Around. ...
It is Dependent on Fossil fuels. ...
Hydrogen Energy Cannot Sustain the Population.
In steam-methane reforming, methane reacts with steam under 3–25 bar pressure (1 bar = 14.5 psi) in the presence of a catalyst to produce hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and a relatively small amount of carbon dioxide. Steam reforming is endothermic—that is, heat must be supplied to the process for the reaction to proceed.
relatively small amount of CO2.... endothermic.... requires heat ?
very energy intensive for a low yield fuel... ?
Disadvantages of Hydrogen Energy
Hydrogen Energy is Expensive. Electrolysis and steam reforming, the two main processes of hydrogen extraction, are extremely expensive. ...
Storage Complications. ...
It's Not the Safest Source of Energy. ...
Tricky to Move Around. ...
It is Dependent on Fossil fuels. ...
Hydrogen Energy Cannot Sustain the Population.
Edited by ruggedscotty on Saturday 17th October 23:43
ruggedscotty said:
Polite M135 driver said:
Hydrogen isn’t made (mostly) by electrolysis, it’s made from methane.
isnt methane a hydrocarbon ? or something that adds to the greenhouse effect ?Methane or heavier hydrocarbons are reacted with water to make H2 and CO2 is what’s called the water-gas shift reaction.
CH4 +H2O —> CO + 3H2
CO + H2O —> CO2 + H2
So the by-product is the same greenhouse gas you’d get by burning the hydrocarbon anyway, and you’d get more energy from it for your vehicle by just burning the petrol in the first place, rather than by converting it to H2 then burning it.
I'll just leave this here:
https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instanc...
I'm sure jjwilde will be on the phone to Daimler first thing on Monday morning telling them they are wasting their millions of Euros on a dead end technology that will never work.
https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instanc...
I'm sure jjwilde will be on the phone to Daimler first thing on Monday morning telling them they are wasting their millions of Euros on a dead end technology that will never work.
The technology to burn hydrogen is fine. Fuel cells are not yet so useful, because there is not enough of the metal catalyst required in the world to produce them on the scale required to meet annual demand for cars. Perhaps specialist use for just lorries would be possible.
But there is escaping the fact that H2 is not a good fuel.
it takes more energy to make hydrogen from water, or from methane, than you get from burning it. That is inescapable and there is no way around it. This is what was meant in a previous post that said H2 production is endothermic - its a reaction that is thermodynamically uphill (products are less stable than the starting materials). This mean you have to put energy in to make the reaction run. You can think of it as the difference between making e.g. a glass - needs energy - and smashing a glass (releases energy - noise, heat).
At best we can optimise hydrogen production by electrolysis (eg with catalysts) and use renewable electricity for it. But produced in any other way its worse for the environment than just burning the hydrocarbon source in the first place.
But there is escaping the fact that H2 is not a good fuel.
it takes more energy to make hydrogen from water, or from methane, than you get from burning it. That is inescapable and there is no way around it. This is what was meant in a previous post that said H2 production is endothermic - its a reaction that is thermodynamically uphill (products are less stable than the starting materials). This mean you have to put energy in to make the reaction run. You can think of it as the difference between making e.g. a glass - needs energy - and smashing a glass (releases energy - noise, heat).
At best we can optimise hydrogen production by electrolysis (eg with catalysts) and use renewable electricity for it. But produced in any other way its worse for the environment than just burning the hydrocarbon source in the first place.
Edited by Polite M135 driver on Sunday 18th October 13:55
Polite M135 driver said:
ruggedscotty said:
Polite M135 driver said:
Hydrogen isn’t made (mostly) by electrolysis, it’s made from methane.
isnt methane a hydrocarbon ? or something that adds to the greenhouse effect ?Methane or heavier hydrocarbons are reacted with water to make H2 and CO2 is what’s called the water-gas shift reaction.
CH4 +H2O —> CO + 3H2
CO + H2O —> CO2 + H2
So the by-product is the same greenhouse gas you’d get by burning the hydrocarbon anyway, and you’d get more energy from it for your vehicle by just burning the petrol in the first place, rather than by converting it to H2 then burning it.
It is not a benefit to climate change but a benefit to human health in urban areas. Yes, again this is human's being selfish and doing more damage to the planet.
Hydrogen only makes sense if it produced from renewable energy source. However, if it is from steam methane reformer then this would make sense if there is carbon capture or synthesis gas by-product (H2,CO mixture) is used for downstream processing into further product and the steam exhaust is used for heating.
V10 SPM said:
I'll just leave this here:
https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instanc...
I'm sure jjwilde will be on the phone to Daimler first thing on Monday morning telling them they are wasting their millions of Euros on a dead end technology that will never work.
Wow. That’s a truck. We are talking about cars. https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instanc...
I'm sure jjwilde will be on the phone to Daimler first thing on Monday morning telling them they are wasting their millions of Euros on a dead end technology that will never work.
Wasting money is the often the R part of R&D. Just look at hydrogen combustion studies.
V10 SPM said:
I'll just leave this here:
https://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instanc...
I'm sure jjwilde will be on the phone to Daimler first thing on Monday morning telling them they are wasting their millions of Euros on a dead end technology that will never work.
TRUCK....TRUCK....TRUCKhttps://media.daimler.com/marsMediaSite/en/instanc...
I'm sure jjwilde will be on the phone to Daimler first thing on Monday morning telling them they are wasting their millions of Euros on a dead end technology that will never work.
Might just work in some case for TRUCKS.
We drive cars, in case you weren't aware, they are not trucks.
You should change your username to the Black Knight.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I disagree, if it happens, the technology and infrastructure will be so specific to the application of trucks that it will be entirely unfit for purpose for passenger cars. As said earlier, why on earth would you bother when a much cheaper, simpler, more reliable, more efficient technology for passenger cars is already being rolled out by every manufacturer.
GT119 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I disagree, if it happens, the technology and infrastructure will be so specific to the application of trucks that it will be entirely unfit for purpose for passenger cars. As said earlier, why on earth would you bother when a much cheaper, simpler, more reliable, more efficient technology for passenger cars is already being rolled out by every manufacturer.
Simpler? If hydrogen works out then people who don't have off-street parking for charging might think it's more convenient.
People might appreciate the refuelling time being miniscule.
Have you considered the implications of manufacturing the battery and sourcing the metals for that in your analysis of how efficient, simple and cheap you think battery cars are?
GT119 said:
I disagree, if it happens, the technology and infrastructure will be so specific to the application of trucks that it will be entirely unfit for purpose for passenger cars.
As said earlier, why on earth would you bother when a much cheaper, simpler, more reliable, more efficient technology for passenger cars is already being rolled out by every manufacturer.
Why would it be unfit for passenger cars ?, that makes no sense.As said earlier, why on earth would you bother when a much cheaper, simpler, more reliable, more efficient technology for passenger cars is already being rolled out by every manufacturer.
It would mean large scale production and distribution of hydrogen. The point of sale would not initially usable for cars, but the real sticking point of production and distribution would have been removed. A simple step from there to car distribution.
But as you say, why.
I suppose the only answer would be range and charging time. If they are removed as issues then Hydrogen for cars would be of little benefit. Large freight would still probably benefit (and therefore rail, saves on overhead lines) but cars are a lot more questionable.
BTW, look up Castle Peak power station explosion.
We ran an identical Hydrogen electrolysis plant. When this happened we stopped compressing the hydrogen and just vented it to air. Kept the Oxygen as it was more expensive to buy in this purity, right up until we managed to burn 100m of oxygen filled stainless steel pipework.
Interesting plants.
Edited by Gary C on Monday 19th October 02:47
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Your hydrogen car also needs that battery... and the metals sourcing is the problem for a fuel cell.
Trucks as the material cost can be absorbed in the lorry and keeping the vehicle going has far more a pressing concern when you are paying someone to drive to it and its only earning when its moving.
Have you considered you don't know enough about the subject to argue either side of it?
Edited by JonnyVTEC on Monday 19th October 09:30
Gary C: "It would mean large scale production and distribution of hydrogen. The point of sale would not initially usable for cars, but the real sticking point of production and distribution would have been removed. A simple step from there to car distribution."
Since the UK is planning to convert the gas network to hydrogen, folk could fill their cars at home. All it would take would be a bit of DIY plumbing on the boiler feed pipe and a small compressor and......Hello St Peter, I'm here earlier than planned!!
Seriously, hydrogen is tricky - as you clearly know. Norway has shut its hydrogen filling stations (4, I think) following an explosion.
And it's surprising what will burn in pure oxygen, especially if there's a bit of heat/pressure.
Since the UK is planning to convert the gas network to hydrogen, folk could fill their cars at home. All it would take would be a bit of DIY plumbing on the boiler feed pipe and a small compressor and......Hello St Peter, I'm here earlier than planned!!
Seriously, hydrogen is tricky - as you clearly know. Norway has shut its hydrogen filling stations (4, I think) following an explosion.
And it's surprising what will burn in pure oxygen, especially if there's a bit of heat/pressure.
Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff