Breakthrough in Hydrogen Fuel Research

[Winnow]

US Scientists Claim Breakthrough in Hydrogen Fuel Research

By Ingrid Smith
AFX News
11/30/04 8:54 AM PT

The conversion rate of water into hydrogen ranges between 45 and 50 percent in high temperatures, compared with about 30 percent in electrolysis, researchers said. "This is ... a crucial first step toward large-scale production of hydrogen from water, rather than from fossil fuels," said Stephen Herring, consulting engineer at INELL.

U.S. scientists said yesterday they have made a breakthrough in their quest to make low-cost hydrogen, a technology which is key to finding new sources of energy to end U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

President George Bush last year announced a US$1.2 billion plan to develop hydrogen-powered cars.

Researchers from the government's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INELL) and the private company Ceramatec Inc. said a computer model shows they can theoretically separate hydrogen from hot water by using a nuclear reactor.

The method, if successful, will yield more hydrogen than electrolysis -- which runs electricity through water to separate hydrogen and oxygen.

The conversion rate of water into hydrogen ranges between 45 and 50 percent in high temperatures, compared with about 30 percent in electrolysis, researchers said.

"This is a breakthrough ... [and] a crucial first step toward large-scale production of hydrogen from water, rather than from fossil fuels," said Stephen Herring, consulting engineer at INELL.

The nuclear reactor method is estimate to be cheaper and more environmentally friendly, Herring added.

However, the method works with Generation IV nuclear reactors, which the U.S. no longer makes.

It looks like we need some more nuclear reactors, long overdue, but relief from our reliance on fossil fuels is on the way!

[Seebs]

My God that would be wonderful.

You think the US is isolationist now? Wait until we don't need anybody!

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Great news. Even better that it is coming from the private sector.

[archeiron]

As a engineering major eager to see environmental alternative sources of fuel, I must say that my enthusiasm for hydrogen has waned considerably over the last few years.

One of my concern with hydrogen is the potential energy stored in hydrogen is much lower than hydrocarbons. Essentially, one litre of petrol has hundreds of times more energy than one litre of liquid hydrogen. The cost of transportation and storage is higher than with petrol so the "bang for your buck" of hydrogen isn't very high. While I applaud any research that leads to making hydrogen production more economical, I think that this solution may not pan out to solve our future energy needs.

Another issue is the amount of water produced by burning hydrogen. If you live in Chicago (or another cold winter state) and every car were burning hydrogen while sitting in rush hour, the amount of ice on the roads would be excessively dangerous.

The list of problems with hydrogen goes on. I am sure that some of them can be addressed, but there may be too many obstacles to overcome to a viable hydrogen economy. While I am eager to see many parallel scientific avenues explored, I am presently skeptical of the idea that hydrogen will solve our problems.

From a practical point of view, the developments in printed solar cells (think inkjet print on solar panelling, on the cheap), revamped stirling generators (new look at old technology), fast breeder nuclear plants (which can process conventional nuclear waste), micro-turbines (nano-power plants), and wind power (overshore and ground based) seem like more viable solutions at this time.

[Lohrno]

I think electric car tech is somewhat promising.

This is pretty cool but not quite ready for primetime.

http://www.eliica.com/

-=Lohrno

[archeiron]

I think electric car tech is somewhat promising.

This is pretty cool but not quite ready for primetime.

http://www.eliica.com/

-=Lohrno

While I don't disagree with you, I would remind you that the electricity to charge up the batteries in an electric car has to come from somewhere. Electric cars will just divert our energy concerns from the roads to the power plants while simultaneously massively increasing loads on the power grid.

On a side note, I suspect that the development of cheap, white LED lighting will have a MASSIVE impact on our power consumption: imagine every street light, every household light, and many bulbs used in other places were consuming 1/5 to 1/50 the amount of power that they do today. Cutting our power consumption will be as important a factor as finding a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

As a engineering major eager to see environmental alternative sources of fuel, I must say that my enthusiasm for hydrogen has waned considerably over the last few years.

One of my concern with hydrogen is the potential energy stored in hydrogen is much lower than hydrocarbons. Essentially, one litre of petrol has hundreds of times more energy than one litre of liquid hydrogen. The cost of transportation and storage is higher than with petrol so the "bang for your buck" of hydrogen isn't very high. While I applaud any research that leads to making hydrogen production more economical, I think that this solution may not pan out to solve our future energy needs.

Another issue is the amount of water produced by burning hydrogen. If you live in Chicago (or another cold winter state) and every car were burning hydrogen while sitting in rush hour, the amount of ice on the roads would be excessively dangerous.

The list of problems with hydrogen goes on. I am sure that some of them can be addressed, but there may be too many obstacles to overcome to a viable hydrogen economy. While I am eager to see many parallel scientific avenues explored, I am presently skeptical of the idea that hydrogen will solve our problems.

From a practical point of view, the developments in printed solar cells (think inkjet print on solar panelling, on the cheap), revamped stirling generators (new look at old technology), fast breeder nuclear plants (which can process conventional nuclear waste), micro-turbines (nano-power plants), and wind power (overshore and ground based) seem like more viable solutions at this time.

What if they made that water produced turn into steam? Wouldn't that eliminate the Chicago scenario?

[Lohrno]

While I don't disagree with you, I would remind you that the electricity to charge up the batteries in an electric car has to come from somewhere. Electric cars will just divert our energy concerns from the roads to the power plants while simultaneously massively increasing loads on the power grid.

True. Although the processing of fossil fuels also consumes some energy which is then again consumed by the vehicles. There are tons of problems with electric cars (mainly with batteries actually), but if they are worked out it could be very cool.

On a side note, I suspect that the development of cheap, white LED lighting will have a MASSIVE impact on our power consumption: imagine every street light, every household light, and many bulbs used in other places were consuming 1/5 to 1/50 the amount of power that they do today. Cutting our power consumption will be as important a factor as finding a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Yeah definitely. In our town they have replaced most of the streetlights with Green/Red LED grids. I think they're easier to read too!

-=Lohrno

[Lohrno]

What if they made that water produced turn into steam? Wouldn't that eliminate the Chicago scenario?

I think that is what happens. Even if not, the steam on a cold day then falls and condenses on the roads as water/ice.

-=Lohrno

[archeiron]

As a engineering major eager to see environmental alternative sources of fuel, I must say that my enthusiasm for hydrogen has waned considerably over the last few years.

One of my concern with hydrogen is the potential energy stored in hydrogen is much lower than hydrocarbons. Essentially, one litre of petrol has hundreds of times more energy than one litre of liquid hydrogen. The cost of transportation and storage is higher than with petrol so the "bang for your buck" of hydrogen isn't very high. While I applaud any research that leads to making hydrogen production more economical, I think that this solution may not pan out to solve our future energy needs.

Another issue is the amount of water produced by burning hydrogen. If you live in Chicago (or another cold winter state) and every car were burning hydrogen while sitting in rush hour, the amount of ice on the roads would be excessively dangerous.

The list of problems with hydrogen goes on. I am sure that some of them can be addressed, but there may be too many obstacles to overcome to a viable hydrogen economy. While I am eager to see many parallel scientific avenues explored, I am presently skeptical of the idea that hydrogen will solve our problems.

From a practical point of view, the developments in printed solar cells (think inkjet print on solar panelling, on the cheap), revamped stirling generators (new look at old technology), fast breeder nuclear plants (which can process conventional nuclear waste), micro-turbines (nano-power plants), and wind power (overshore and ground based) seem like more viable solutions at this time.

What if they made that water produced turn into steam? Wouldn't that eliminate the Chicago scenario?

The water would be produced as steam, but any heat that escapes the energy conversion process would be power wasted. Furthermore, it would just condense anyway and fall as sleet out of the exhaust in cold climates. Retaining the water would prove problematic as the exhaust storage would be heavier and larger than the fuel tank. Additionally, in warmer climates the steam would create a visible fog at the surface on congested roads, which would itself be a safety hazard (in areas where it didn't swift freeze onto the roads). This speaks nothing of the environmental impact of producing "floods" along every road in America.


I will speculate that the near future (post oil) will contain many solutions. We could use printed solar panelling for cell phones and hand held devices, together with better batteries and charging capabilities. We could use wind and solar plants for the places that can support them; plants that are significantly more efficient and affordable than the ones manufactured today. Fuel cell or micro-turbine driven replacements for batteries. It would be in our best interest to reduce the need for bulky energy distribution grids (oil tankers, processing plants, power grids, etc) and build devices that are moderately self reliant and not power hungry. If you look at the power consumption of halogens vs. LEDs you can see one way to reduce consumption.

I would like to see homes become less power hungry and better able to support modest power production of their own in the near future.

[Winnow]

What if they made that water produced turn into steam? Wouldn't that eliminate the Chicago scenario?

The water would be produced as steam, but any heat that escapes the energy conversion process would be power wasted. Furthermore, it would just condense anyway and fall as sleet out of the exhaust in cold climates. Retaining the water would prove problematic as the exhaust storage would be heavier and larger than the fuel tank. Additionally, in warmer climates the steam would create a visible fog at the surface on congested roads, which would itself be a safety hazard (in areas where it didn't swift freeze onto the roads). This speaks nothing of the environmental impact of producing "floods" along every road in America.

Is it not possible that instead of a muffler, cars would have steam capture tanks/devices and cars would then take a "leak" to rid themselves of the water at designated areas? Even better, recycle the water.

[archeiron]

What if they made that water produced turn into steam? Wouldn't that eliminate the Chicago scenario?

The water would be produced as steam, but any heat that escapes the energy conversion process would be power wasted. Furthermore, it would just condense anyway and fall as sleet out of the exhaust in cold climates. Retaining the water would prove problematic as the exhaust storage would be heavier and larger than the fuel tank. Additionally, in warmer climates the steam would create a visible fog at the surface on congested roads, which would itself be a safety hazard (in areas where it didn't swift freeze onto the roads). This speaks nothing of the environmental impact of producing "floods" along every road in America.

Is it not possible that instead of a muffler, cars would have steam capture tanks/devices and cars would then take a "leak" to rid themselves of the water at designated areas? Even better, recycle the water.

I highlighted the answer to that for you.

[Lohrno]

I highlighted the answer to that for you.

I'm a little confused as to that. If you are storing the hydrogen, it doesn't change mass, unless it would be pulling it from the air...

-=Lohrno

[Aslanna]

It looks like we need some more nuclear reactors, long overdue, but relief from our reliance on fossil fuels is on the way!

Good luck getting one of those built. Nobody minds nuclear power plants until they want to build one near where they live.

[Winnow]

What if they made that water produced turn into steam? Wouldn't that eliminate the Chicago scenario?

The water would be produced as steam, but any heat that escapes the energy conversion process would be power wasted. Furthermore, it would just condense anyway and fall as sleet out of the exhaust in cold climates. Retaining the water would prove problematic as the exhaust storage would be heavier and larger than the fuel tank. Additionally, in warmer climates the steam would create a visible fog at the surface on congested roads, which would itself be a safety hazard (in areas where it didn't swift freeze onto the roads). This speaks nothing of the environmental impact of producing "floods" along every road in America.

Is it not possible that instead of a muffler, cars would have steam capture tanks/devices and cars would then take a "leak" to rid themselves of the water at designated areas? Even better, recycle the water.

I highlighted the answer to that for you.

So what if it's bigger than the fuel tank? Is it a problem of the weight reducing the efficiency of the hydrogen power if retained onboard? I can picture a two way fueling system where you refuel with hydrogen while dumping the water. If it's pure water, it could also be taken home and used in a wise manner at home. Use it to water your lawn, fill your pool or something.

[Winnow]

It looks like we need some more nuclear reactors, long overdue, but relief from our reliance on fossil fuels is on the way!

Good luck getting one of those built. Nobody minds nuclear power plants until they want to build one near where they live.

This one is pretty close to where I live and I am happy to have it:

http://www.srpnet.com/power/stations/paloverde.asp

People are still freaked by old school Three Mile Island stuff. Nuclear power rocks. More more more!

Here are some interesting facts about the Palo Verde Nuclear Generation Station:

Construction began in 1976. There are three units, the last of which was completed in 1988. The total cost to build the plant was $5.9 billion.

The Palo Verde plant is the largest nuclear energy generating facility in the United States. It is located about 50 miles west of Phoenix in Tonopah, Arizona.

The facility is on about 4,000 acres. Approximately 2,500 people are employed there.

In 2000 the Palo Verde nuclear plant generated 30.4 million megawatts of power.

About 4 million people in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas receive power generated by the Palo Verde plant.

Palo Verde is the only nuclear energy facility in the world that uses treated sewage effluence for cooling water.

Palo Verde does not use fossil fuels to generate electricity. It is a zero-emissions facility.

The reactors at Palo Verde are in an airtight, reinforced concrete structure designed to withstand the force of a jet airplane.

[archeiron]

I highlighted the answer to that for you.

I'm a little confused as to that. If you are storing the hydrogen, it doesn't change mass, unless it would be pulling it from the air...

-=Lohrno

Hydrogen is burned by combining two hydrogen with an oxygen atom (drawn from the air), which is eight times heavier than hydrogen. The weight of the exhaust product (water) would be 8 times heavier than the original fuel and occupy several hundred times the volume. The hydrogen could be compressed and stored in a high pressure tank whereas water is essentially fixed in volume (cannot be compressed). The exhaust tank would be massive and would add significant weight to the car as it burns fuel meaning that the car would need more fuel to run with each passing mile, which would in turn create more exhaust.

[Lohrno]

Hydrogen is burned by combining two hydrogen with an oxygen atom (drawn from the air), which is eight times heavier than hydrogen. The weight of the exhaust product (water) would be 8 times heavier than the original fuel and occupy several hundred times the volume. The hydrogen could be compressed and stored in a high pressure tank whereas water is essentially fixed in volume (cannot be compressed). The exhaust tank would be massive and would add significant weight to the car as it burns fuel meaning that the car would need more fuel to run with each passing mile, which would in turn create more exhaust.

Ok, so you're taking oxygen particles from the air. (Which makes total sense, you need oxygen for combustion.) Yeah storing it would not be practical.

-=Lohrno

[Animalor]

Imagine cars with small nuclear reactors that could turn that water back into Oxygen and Hydrogen and run on a limitless powersource(other than the uranium of course).

The problems with a water by-product in cars is when the cold weather starts, you're essentially creating a thick layer of ice on the roads.

Problematic...

[Lohrno]

Imagine cars with small nuclear reactors that could turn that water back into Oxygen and Hydrogen and run on a limitless powersource(other than the uranium of course).

The problems with a water by-product in cars is when the cold weather starts, you're essentially creating a thick layer of ice on the roads.

Problematic...

You might as well just power it from nuclear power then.

-=Lohrno

[archeiron]

Imagine cars with small nuclear reactors that could turn that water back into Oxygen and Hydrogen and run on a limitless powersource(other than the uranium of course).

The problems with a water by-product in cars is when the cold weather starts, you're essentially creating a thick layer of ice on the roads.

Problematic...

Imagine how heavy nuclear materials and their containment units are (more energy needed to move the vehicle which means poor energy efficiency). Imagine what would happen if one of them was in a horrible accident and leaked radioactive isotopes all of your street.

[Seebs]

I understand that only refurbished DeLoreans will be able to utilize this technology.

[Lohrno]

Imagine how heavy nuclear materials and their containment units are. Imagine what would happen if one of them was in a horrible accident and leaked radioactive isotopes all of your street.

This is why I think Battery Power or Hybrids are the most promising...We already have prototypes that are somewhat viable. It's just a matter of improving on them...There have been some electrolytic hydrogen car experiments but not as promising as pure battery power.

-=Lohrno

[Zaelath]

Yeah, good luck with your "alternative fuel".. here's the danger in working on faith:

1) Hydrogen is not an alternative fuel source, it's an alternative storage. Even with the improved technique, the energy input is more than twice the output; it returns less energy than it consumes to produce, fossile fuel on the other hand produces 100 times the energy it takes to mine and process.

2) Your current 103 reactors generate 20% of your power, that means 400 more reactors to catch up right? Well no, if you're going to switch from gasoline to electric cars and have a 200:1 loss of efficiency in your fuel soure, you'll need thousands more.

3) Not withstanding that you need a lot of energy to build thousands of reactors, the known reserves of nuclear fuel being consumed at that rate would only last about 20 years. It seems an incredibly "dirty" way to create a stop gap.

Perhaps fusion reactors could save our collective asses, but as one guy said, "Fusion is the energy source of the future, and it always will be."

[Winnow]

Yeah, good luck with your "alternative fuel".. here's the danger in working on faith:

1) Hydrogen is not an alternative fuel source, it's an alternative storage. Even with the improved technique, the energy input is more than twice the output; it returns less energy than it consumes to produce, fossile fuel on the other hand produces 100 times the energy it takes to mine and process.

2) Your current 103 reactors generate 20% of your power, that means 400 more reactors to catch up right? Well no, if you're going to switch from gasoline to electric cars and have a 200:1 loss of efficiency in your fuel soure, you'll need thousands more.

3) Not withstanding that you need a lot of energy to build thousands of reactors, the known reserves of nuclear fuel being consumed at that rate would only last about 20 years. It seems an incredibly "dirty" way to create a stop gap.

Perhaps fusion reactors could save our collective asses, but as one guy said, "Fusion is the energy source of the future, and it always will be."

non believer!

Ignoring hydro cars for a sec, if Palo Verde furnishes 4 million people with electricity, that covers the entire state of Nevada with one plant. California would need 10 reactors for homes and maybe 10 more for businesses. 20 reactors to power the entire state of California at an initial cost of about 5 billion per reactor. Reactor designs have improved quite a bit since the 70's when Palo Verde was designed. 100 Billion is chump change to setup california for 100 years of power! (quit having babies you fools!)

For smaller states like Nevada, it's even more attractive. Maybe two plants in Nevada would drastically cut other power consumption.

We need more nuclear power!

[archeiron]

3) Not withstanding that you need a lot of energy to build thousands of reactors, the known reserves of nuclear fuel being consumed at that rate would only last about 20 years. It seems an incredibly "dirty" way to create a stop gap.

Perhaps fusion reactors could save our collective asses, but as one guy said, "Fusion is the energy source of the future, and it always will be."

Read up on fast breeder reactors that don't use water as a coolant. They are able to take the nuclear waste and resuse it in their core. It is terribly efficient by comparison and could lead to reactors that eat our current waste, produce less waste, produce waste with a 16 year half life, have no or few moving parts, generate more electricity more efficiently, and when switched off the coolants for a casing that solidifying to contain the residual waste. I don't think that they are the magic bullet, but nuclear power still has a significant technological lifecycle to go through.

Perhaps, the only meaningful, abundant, renewable source of energy that should last us for a significant time period is solar radiation from the sun. Why produce fusion cores (with turbine engines attached) when you can directly convert photons to electrons from the mother of all photon sources?

[Zaelath]

Ignoring hydro cars for a sec

What's the point of that? You can't plan to run out/do away with fossil fuel and just power the net and ignore transportation..

And breeder reactors are nice, but they produce plutonium.. and nothing at the moment produces only "short" half-life radioactive waste.

[Kaldaur]

Back on the hydrogen subject, there seems to be a lot of debate about what happens to the hydrogen when it is released from the car. What about if we created some sort of hydrogen "trappers" that sucked water out of the air in small increments, or at a set humidity level, so that if there was too much moisture in the air from car runoff it would then kick on and begin to trap it? At which point it could be filtered or stored for pickup later.
Seems strange and unimplementable. I'm just wanting to toss around ideas for hydrogen possibilities. At this point, anything but fossil fuels seems desirable.

[Deward]

Everyone seems to be forgetting about biodiesel products. The original diesel engine (1890s) was designed to run on vegetable oil. This is a great alternative to current fuels. I am hoping to build one in teh next year or two myself. They are cold-blooded but I have a heated garage and I think they would be great during the warmer times of year. Otherwise you could always install a block warmer.

http://www.greasecar.com

The other alternative is alcohol based engines. Most gases have a 10% ethanol already. A pure alcohol system requires a few modifications to the engine though because alcohol has a tendency to degrade rubber hoses.