Panasonic moves closer to home energy self-sufficiency with fuel cells

This is a great laboratory advance.
Like you, I'd happily go off grid.

I look forward to seeing what they can bring to market.
In the meantime, I'll be quite happy with pumping as much solar energy into the grid as my house and both cars use each year.

I'm skeptical of the possibility of doing this with hydrogen, but looking forward to being surprised.

 

I look forward to the day they bring this technology to the masses...if I live that long.

 

Well, at least Panasonic is divesting their consumer division wisely. This kind of racket is filled with incentives. The best solar panels have only achieved 21.5%? I could have sworn they were higher (near 30%). Now maybe they aren't on the market, but neither is this.
merged
I was way off with 30%. Just last year the Fraunhoffer Institute for Solar Energy Systems created a bonafide solar panel with 44.7% efficiency:

How It Works: The Highest-Efficiency Solar Cell | Popular Science

Conceivably market-ready by as early as 2017. Eat your heart out, H2.

The "hydrogen society" has a lot of competition. Personally, I would prefer to limit my exposure to highly flammable gasses, not increase it and make it a central part of my life. Also, if you go renewable and get off-grid, you're arguably doing a disservice to said grid in making it more renewably powered.

 

Sounds like though they are converting H2 to elec (not storing the H2) so keep the PiP.

 

So lower your electric, but increase your water.

 

lol, in my haste to find the latest solar efficiency ratings, I completely overlooked that crucial detail. That's a nonstarter for Californians already.

 

Sounds like saying this a potential way to get more solar power from smaller surface area of solar cells, assuming you are space limited and can afford the (I presume) the extra costs.

 

Actually, I'm using wind to store energy.
I will be using no NG in our house that we are building.

I can also go off grid with batteries. The issue here is the large cost. I am looking forward to more information on options for hydrogen, it will be interesting to compare.

 

While I am looking forward to an H2 off grid solution, I'm not as optimistic as you.
As for your dismissal of a grid tied system in discussions, I don't get that.
You have installed a grid tied solar system yourself.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems your only focus is on your personal carbon footprint, and not society's as a whole, would that be correct?

If you look at your city's CO2 emissions, if you have an off grid system vs a grid tied, there is no CO2 savings.
For you personally, if you don't count RECs, there is a savings, but not for your neighborhood/city.

 

With more efficient PV panels coming to market, the extra costs of this will make it a non-starter.
For simplicity, let's assume that the panels between the two systems cost the same. The photolysis to fuel cell system will have the additional cost of the fuel cell, hydrogen storage tank and compressor, and plumbing water and hydrogen lines to the panels. The panels may not need electrical wired to them, but I'm wondering how it works in climates with freezing temps.

It may be worth it for limited panel space, but I think it will require more interior space.

No free lunch. If you use the hydrogen produced for a fuel cell, you won't be reducing CO2. Like photosynthesis, the CO2 is bound up by reacting it with the freed hydrogen. Plants make sugars. The experimental cell in the video was making mostly formic acid, but the system could possibly make other organic compounds. Maybe cetanes or octanes.

You have a choice; hydrogen for electric production or CO2 reduction while making useful organic chemicals.
This could be more efficient than Audi's synthetic methane and diesel process, or at least a nice augmentation to it. It uses solar directly for most of the process, and Audi's can use excess wind power at night.

 

For remote areas, sure being off the grid is great. But for most of us, being on grid is better.

Time shifting solar is expensive, but solar is often produced during the time periods where demand is high means properly regulated solar placed on the grid could be subsidized by other grid users without the cost of electricity rising. IIRC that is until about 15% solar, California is around 2%, and the US is under 1% as is Japan. This system seems like it will stay much more expensive per kwh than grid tied solar pv.

Data centers and hospitals and some other items in the grid area need back up, and hydrogen back up may be cost effective some time in the future. Of course if you mandate solar hydrogen and give money for its productions this may be a better way to do it.

 

I am still confused about status of low pressure Hydride storage of H2, that would be cool. One YouTube video shows the guy using Lithium Dueteride capsules to run a car quite nicely...he fills from home solar electrolysis. I just don't know if he's pulling my leg. I do think some small H2 toys work that way with hydride storage, and one fledgling H2 car in EU was designed that way.

 

One of the first toyota fuel cell vehicles used metal hidride tanks. DOE thinks this is still an avenue for investigation versus the 10,000 psi hydrogen route. Tanks and pumps could be less expensive. Unfortunately the tanks would be too big and heavy to give 300 miles of range on a car using today's tech. For a stationary application though you simply need to build a bigger hole, and the tech to do this should come much faster than trying to make a hydrogen metal hydride tank for a car.
Metal Hydride Storage Materials | Department of Energy

 

If hydride storage is almost good enough for cars, then it could be a great way to capture H2 in capsules at low pressure and use for home appliances. Already you can get toy race cars and other things that work that way. For example, you could use it to charge your PiP on the off hours.

 

Phenomenal, I love the idea of taking CO2 out of the air.
Again, I'm looking forward to seeing this tech available on the market.
Once it is, I'll look at its cost, efficiency (including storage), space needed, etc..

As is, I can build a home now (over the next 6 months) that allows me to put as much solar energy into the grid as I use for the house AND transportation each year.
Don't let future promised "perfect" be the enemy of today's "pretty damn good".

 

Its just a breakthrough away from being good enough for cars But we don't know if or when we will get that breakthrough. If people are willing to pay though they are good enough for stationary storage of hydrogen, but so are stainless steel tanks with pressurized hydrogen. The nice thing about metal hydrydes is you don't need a compressor for a stationary application.

The stuff that is here that can store hydrogen or biogas or natural gas and be transported easily is methanol. California ran a successful experiment on methanol, or rather M85 (85% methanol, 16% gasoline) flex fuel cars, but the hydrogen and ethanol lobbies helped stop the experiment. China is rolling out methanol also, so the tech is all there. California added the 15% gasoline since methanol has an invisible flaime like hydrogen, the gasoline allowed people to see the fires, but its probably better not to have the fires. Methanol is used in portable fuel cells just fine, but a reformer would be needed on board a car for a PEM fuel cell. Toshiba has some methanol fuel cell powered lap tops, but lithium batteries got so cheap they dropped it.

Hydrogen can power natural gas type appliances, but the cost is much higher than propane.