| |
Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies
by flynn23 at 10:56 am EST, Nov 29, 2004 |
] Experts cite three big roadblocks to a hydrogen economy:
] manufacturing hydrogen cleanly and at low cost, finding a
] way to ship it and store it on the vehicles that use it,
] and reducing the astronomical price of fuel cells. This is an excerpt from a NYTimes article about hyperheating water to achieve a higher degree of efficiency in electrolysis for conversion to pure hydrogen. A great idea, and one that I plan to test myself. The reason why I except this statement is because it is bullshit and is one of the reasons why the 'hydrogen economy' is not making meaningful progress other than through rhetoric and press and anemic academic research. Firstly, manufacturing hydrogen cleanly and at low cost is ridiculous. Today's technology is already cleaner and at lower cost than the current fossil fuel system. I'm producing it today and my total investment (minus time) is about $200. There's no way in hell that I could've produced and refined fossil fuels on my own for an equivalent price. The only thing that has not been attempted is to manufacture hydrogen at scale. So until someone is willing to pony up the investment to do that, shut the hell up, because the numbers prove that it is superior in comparison to current and most importantly previous fossil fuel acquisition systems. Secondly, finding a way to ship it and store it on vehicles is like whining in June about it snowing in January. Fucking fix the system first and then worry about this. You figured out a way to securely transport fossil fuels on vehicles so that my 74 year old grandmother doesn't kill anyone while driving, so I'm sure we can figure this out when it's appropriate. Finally, reducing the astronomical price of fuel cells is a joke. You have a fuel cell right now and it's ridiculously cheap. It's called a battery. The same technology that went into batteries and reduced their cost to literally pennies, can be applied to fuel cells. It's supply and demand. Yes, fuel cells are more complicated, and utilize materials that are scarce and difficult to prepare, but guess what? so do microprocessors, and they're virtually ubiquitous. The idea that we're complaining about scarce materials which are difficult to refine and prepare for consumption when we're talking about supplanting fossil fuels, which are FINITE, COSTLY, and DIFFICULT to refine and prepare is so stupid it makes my head hurt. Think about it: it's taken nearly 100 years to have an infrastructure system in place where fuel comes up from the ground, gets refined and transported, and put in a place where even a moron can refuel her vehicle in the most remote parts of the planet. I think we can do better even in 1/4 the time. Sheesh. |
| |
RE: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies
by k at 11:25 am EST, Nov 29, 2004 |
flynn23 wrote:
] Firstly, manufacturing hydrogen cleanly and at low cost is
] ridiculous. Today's technology is already cleaner and at lower
] cost than the current fossil fuel system. I'm producing it
] today and my total investment (minus time) is about $200.
] There's no way in hell that I could've produced and refined
] fossil fuels on my own for an equivalent price. The only thing
] that has not been attempted is to manufacture hydrogen at
] scale. So until someone is willing to pony up the investment
] to do that, shut the hell up, because the numbers prove that
] it is superior in comparison to current and most importantly
] previous fossil fuel acquisition systems. [ You have a hydrogen production apparatus? How's yours work? I'm interested in your results... what kind of efficiency are you finding? As for the article, it wimps out at the end, mostly. I think it's obvious that a hydrogen economy is pointless, at best, until we're getting our hydrogen from a root fuel which is not a hydrocarbon. Which means nuclear, really. Given the resistance people have to the word nuclear, I'm concerned. I wonder how those PBR's are coming along... -k] |
|
| | |
RE: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies
by Decius at 2:43 pm EST, Nov 29, 2004 |
k wrote:
] As for the article, it wimps out at the end, mostly. I think
] it's obvious that a hydrogen economy is pointless, at best,
] until we're getting our hydrogen from a root fuel which is not
] a hydrocarbon. Which means nuclear, really. Given the
] resistance people have to the word nuclear, I'm concerned. I strongly disagree. Hydrogen is a transportation and storage medium for power. Switching to it gives us a neutral platform into which we can introduce various power sources without having to re-engineer everything. We could then convert a large percentage of our power production for automobiles from gasoline to natural gas or coal or nuclear or whatever we wanted. Coal is a fossil fuel, but it is a hell of a lot more abundant then oil, and we happen to have a large percentage of the world supply domestically. This flexibility would shelter us from political and scarcity problems with any particular energy source. We may not solve the "big problem" of how to produce sustainable, renewable, totally clean power in our lifetimes. So what. This does not mean we should continue to operate an infrastructure that is totally dependent on one particular kind of energy source that happens to be very difficult to deal with. There are obvious benefits to having a more flexible infrastructure that can be had without having a total solution to the world's energy problems. |
|
| | | |
RE: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies
by k at 4:02 pm EST, Nov 29, 2004 |
Decius wrote:
] I strongly disagree. Hydrogen is a transportation and storage
] medium for power. Switching to it gives us a neutral platform
] into which we can introduce various power sources without
] having to re-engineer everything. [ True, I understated the mid-term usefulness in my desire to see the end goal. It's likely that this is really the only way out of the dangerous energy situation we're in. Pointless was certainly the wrong word for me to use... even if the efficiency is low, and the electricity source is coal, it's probably still better than being tethered to the whims of OPEC. Shit, it's even possible that the smog and acid rain would kick people enough to be conservation minded again, as a side benefit.
-k] |
|
| | |
RE: Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies
by flynn23 at 10:57 am EST, Nov 30, 2004 |
k wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] Firstly, manufacturing hydrogen cleanly and at low cost is
] ] ridiculous. Today's technology is already cleaner and at
] lower
] ] cost than the current fossil fuel system. I'm producing it
] ] today and my total investment (minus time) is about $200.
] ] There's no way in hell that I could've produced and refined
] ] fossil fuels on my own for an equivalent price. The only
] thing
] ] that has not been attempted is to manufacture hydrogen at
] ] scale. So until someone is willing to pony up the investment
]
] ] to do that, shut the hell up, because the numbers prove that
]
] ] it is superior in comparison to current and most importantly
]
] ] previous fossil fuel acquisition systems.
]
] [ You have a hydrogen production apparatus? How's yours work? I've been messing around with this for a few years now. I was toying with the idea of starting a business somehow involved in fuel cell production or design or something. Anything to help move this paradigm shift along. But I wanted to experiment with it first and learn as much as I could before making that kind of commitment. I've set up several production systems. Some using house current to drive electrolysis. Some using solar. Some using 'other means'. My current system uses solar, and I'll probably stay with that as it's totally sustainable and involves nearly negligable environmental impact. I've toyed with the idea of creating a solar/hydrogen powered car. I've got a 1996 Saturn SL2 that has a leaking front gasket in the engine which might be a great project car to try this out on, but my time is extremely limited these days. ] I'm interested in your results... what kind of efficiency are
] you finding? It depends. I don't have highly accurate means of measuring that, but generally it's impressive given the ersatz nature of putting this stuff together with literally duct tape and surplus wood. I don't have my exact figures with me at the moment, but I've routinely gotten ~50% efficiency with solar with absolutely no doping or efficiency engineering. I know that with some moderate investment (couple hundred bucks) I could get towards 70%. If I were willing to invest a few thousand, I could push that close to 80%. The idea inspired by the NYT article I may pursue is to try and put the water into a heated and pressurized state and see if that boosts my efficiency any. Obviously the design would be flawed, since I'd need grid electricity to drive both pressure pump and heater, but it might be a neat birdwalk of an experiment. But frankly, I'd rather look at other things to tweak. ] As for the article, it wimps out at the end, mostly. I think
] it's obvious that a hydrogen economy is pointless, at best,
] until we're getting our hydrogen from a root fuel which is not
] a hydrocarbon. Which means nuclear, really. Given... [ Read More (0.1k in body) ] |
|
The New York Times : Washington : Hydrogen Production Method Could Bolster Fuel Supplies
by Lost at 8:33 am EST, Nov 29, 2004 |
] The goal is to create a reactor that could produce about
] 300 megawatts of electricity for the grid, enough to run
] about 300,000 window air-conditioners, or produce about
] 2.5 kilos of hydrogen per second. When burned, a kilo of
] hydrogen has about the same energy value as a gallon of
] unleaded regular gasoline. But fuel cells, which work
] without burning, get about twice as much work out of each
] unit of fuel. So if used in automotive fuel cells, the
] reactor might replace more than 400,000 gallons of
] gasoline per day. |
|
|
