Bush Pushing Hydrogen Fuel As Alternative

As far as Bush is concerned, he is a man that made a career out of drilling dry wells in Texas.

Not surprised he is touting hydrogen, but what he is really touting is channelling billions of dollars in R&D money to oil companies to "develop hydrogen technologies."

Herb

 

But you didn't read my post. There are companies that are exploring the possibility of using ocean going tanker ships with windmills mounted that use electrolysis to convert sea water into hydrogen. Who cares if there is a 30% efficiency loss if you are using wind power in the open ocean????

We get most of our oil from oil tanker ships. What if you replaced those oil tanker ships with hydrogen generation ships, and instead of sailing all the way to Venezuela or the Middle East, they simply sail 100 miles out into open ocean, sit around for a week making hydrogen, and then sail back into port with a full load of hydrogen.

Don't get bent out of shape because they will initially process Natural Gas into hydrogen or burn fossil fuels to produce hydrogen. They trick is to get the cars off of gas and onto hydrogen. In the long run that opens the door for hydrogen to be produced by other means, such as ocean going ships with windmills.

Take a look at this article.

http://www.energybulletin.net/3111.html

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Herb\";p=\"93040)</div>

Come on people!!! I realize that the Prius is primarily attactive to Democrat leaning people, but don't let your Bush-Hating, Big-Oil-Fearing, Consipiracy-Theory mindsets blind you. The fact that Bush supports something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea.

Hydrogen fuel cell cars will remove the direct dependence of cars on fossil fuels. If everyone switched to a hydrogen fuel cell powered car tomorrow, it would really matter if the hydrogen consumed over the next 10 years was produced using fossil fuels, because we would have been consuming fossil fuels directly in our cars anyway.

However, once you stop fossil fuels from being directly poured into your gas tank, you open up the door to other methods of hydrogen production.

And here's something for the Big-Oil-Fearing crowd... Hydrogen fuel cells will break the oil monopolies. To produce oil, you must own land with oil deposits, which is in finite supply. To produce hydrogen, you simply need water and electricity. Unlike the oil business, anyone with enough money to mount a windmill on a tanker ship can get into the hydrogen producing industry.

And for the 30% effiency loss crowd... Even if you are burning fossil fuels to generate hydrogen, I'm willing to bet you that a mult-mega-watt power plant uses a gallon of oil much more efficiently than a car's internal combustion engine would.

And for the build better batteries crowd... Which would you rather do: pull into a hydrogen station and spend 3 minutes refilling your car with hydrogen, or pull into a battery recharge station and spend an hour or more recharging your batteries. Because I don't care how advanced your batteries are; you aren't going to be able to charge them enough to travel 300 miles in the time it would take your to fill up a tank with hydrogen.

Get the cars off of directly burning fossil fuels as quickly as you can, even if you simply shift the fossil fuel consumption to hydrogen production. Because then you create a large market for hydrogen and the free market will find effiecent ways to produce hydrogen without fossil fuels.

 

Although one idea i have read about in regards to batteries is that gas stations would simply be battery stations. You would just eject your used battery and swap it with a newly recharged battery and be on your way.

 

rcroft,

I DID read your post. Your idealism is admirable, but you are not REALLY thinking. You are getting hoodwinked by a very attractive sounding idea (that I, like you, hope comes to pass someday). You stated "Get the cars off of directly burning fossil fuels as quickly as you can, even if you simply shift the fossil fuel consumption to hydrogen production. Because then you create a large market for hydrogen and the free market will find effiecent ways to produce hydrogen without fossil fuels."

That seems to make sense until you really think about. Your premise is to create the "hydrogen economy", which goes completely AGAINST the free market, and then the FREE MARKET will find ways to make it work. But clearly, that logic is fundementally flawed. Let me explain.

Replacing the existing oil infrastructure with a hydrogen infrastructure will cost untold $billions, even $trillions. A hydrogen fuel cell currently costs about a $1,000,000 to manufacture. There is 30% energy loss when you use hydrogen vs. fossil fuel (and I read your comment about power plant efficiency and wind boats, I'll get to those). Nobody (except the Governator) owns a car that runs on hydrogen. So how are you going to get the infrastructure in place, and have people ready and willing to use that infrastructure at great personal cost, so that THEN the FREE MARKET can figure out how to make it cost effective? The initial cost is WAY TOO HIGH. It goes completely against economic feasibility and the free market, but then you want the free market to kick in and presto, we've kicked the oil habit. You can't have it both ways.

You said (essentially) in one of your posts that "if you could just wave a majic wand and put the H economy in place" you would. You are right, if the H economy just "appeared" , we would figure out how to make it work. But it isn't going to just appear, and making it appear is completely insurmountable without the free market on your side. Oil is cheap and in comparison, H is fantastically expensive. Therefore, there is no free market incentive to use H.

About the 30% efficiency loss and wind power, ships etc. We can't afford to increase our dependence on fossil fuels by 30%. We don't have the power plant generating capacity to allow us to stop burning gas in our cars and use H instead, because that would take dozens (100's?) of new power plants that would cost $trillions and take decades to build. So your dream of using power plants to make H sounds nice but it isn't practical or cost effective (remeber the free market). And we don't have anything to usde the H in yet.

I don't have all the numbers I would like here, but enough I think to make my point. There are 13,000 wind turbines in California. We produce less than 1/6 of 1% of our power with wind and solar combined. Lets ignore solar. Lets assume that 25% of the wind turbines in the US are in California, meaning we would have 52,000 total. Then to produce JUST 10% of our energy via wind power would take 52,000 x 6 x 10 = 3,120,000 wind turbines. For just 10%! I love that German H boat idea. It's very cool. But wind power already costs more than fossil fuel power. How much do you think it would cost to put 3 million wind turbines on ships? Who's gonna pay for it? Why are they going to pay for it? It certainly isn't going to be because of the free market! Maybe if we raise taxes about 50%?

I'm sure these hurdles may be surmounted in time, but by focussing on the endpoint (the H economy), without addressing the real problem first, we are just wasting precious time and money. We must figure our how to COST EFFECTIVELY derive energy from sources other than fossil fuels first. That is the real problem, and once we solve that, THEN the free market will kick in. THEN we can afford to make H. THEN we can start converting to an H economy. THINK about it!

H is a tool we can use to allow us to power cars without fossil fuel AFTER we have developed a way to generate power not using fossil fuel. Your mention of the free market is the key to the answer, but you (and George Bush) have it backwards. The free market will make the H economy happen once we solve the energy problem, not the other way around. H is not a solution, it is a tool that makes the solution (whatever that may be) work for us.

 

> Because I don't care how advanced your batteries are

Too bad you don't... since FUEL-CELL vehicles use batteries too!


> pull into a hydrogen station and spend 3 minutes refilling your car with hydrogen

Where is your proof that filling 2 large 10,000 PSI tanks can occur in just 3 minutes?


> pull into a battery recharge station and spend an hour or more recharging your batteries

Using a commercial connection, they've nailed down to just under 20 minutes for an 80% replenish from completely dead.


> The fact that Bush supports something doesn't automatically make it a bad idea.

Actually, it does. When he endorsed hydrogen, he turned his back on hybrids. Had he really been sincere about finding a solution he would have let the market propose the best way to use the money, rather than being told. Remember that Ford & GM would begging for hybrid subsidies. Instead, all they got was half a 2 billion grant for hydrogen research... and Iraq got over 200 billion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rcroft\";p=\"93051)</div>

Which would you rather do? Drive home every night and have a small device that finds your plug on the car and automatically self plugs itself in, such that you NEVER have to go to a filling station again, or drive up to a hydrogen station and fill up with hydrogen? In fact, you only have to have a battery that will get you 150 miles per day for this technology to work for 95% of drivers 99% of he time. And we may be a matter of months away from that technology. NOT 15 years.

And for others that need to drive for hours and hours, all you need are replaceable batteries. One of the small electric commuter cars out there already has batteries that can be replaced by one person in 10 minutes. They feel that this could be automated and the batteries replaced in seconds.

rcroft, you make points about hydrogen as if the only roadblock is the fuel cell. Plus, you talk about hydrogen made from splitting the water molecule. This is NOT where the Bush administration is putting research money. They are putting money into making hydrogen from natural gas -- NOT WATER.

Currently, there exists a plug in hybrid prius in California that will go 600 miles on a tank of gas for an average MPG of about 70 MPG for that 600 miles. And for the first 100 miles each day, it will go about 150MPG. If your commute is less than 50 miles each way each day, you will get about 150MPG forever. And this is in 2005, NOT 2020.

How much will this car cost in 2005? About $35000 and no need for infrastructrue changes. Yes, that's too much money, but they ain't done yet. Do you know how much a similar hydrogen car now goes for in 2005? About $250,000 and that doesn't even count the cost of fuel, the delivery of fuel, or the storage of fuel. So it seems to me that electric is about 20years ahead of hydrogen.

What we need to be thinking about as a nation is better ways to make electricity that don't in any shape or form use fossil fuels. And for the problem of portable energy, which is what the ICE is all about, we need to go in the direction that is scientifically attainable in a reasonable amount of time. And this seems clearly to be battery//electric.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Herb\";p=\"93040)</div>

Exactly. Bush's plan has nothing to do with science. It has nothing to do with reality. It has nothing to do with practicality.

What is the agenda of the oil compainies anyway? Profits. Since when would a corporation do something that may be scientifically the best approach, but fiscally irresponsible for their own interests?

GWB's plan has everything to do with channelling billions of dollars to those who bought him his current job.

 

Hydrogen is the FUTURE! Period. Well unless the human race starts decreasing in size!

Yes there is no way to produce H as efficiently as fossil fuel, right now. Give it 5 years. I remember when a computer with 640K was several hundred dollars!

The problem with "alternative" sources of fuel, (re: bio-diesel, solar, wind..) is either producing enough to satisfy world thirst for energy (bio-diesel, a great percentage of people in the world are STARVING because they can't grow food, and you think they'll grow something to stick in the gas tank) or you have to get the energy to the where the people are (it ain't windy or sunny everywhere).

Plus fuels cells aren't that expensive, for about $35,000 you can equip a car with enough fuel cells and batteries to be practical. Of course that is on top of the car price. Still not available to everyone but getting there.

The key is creating the H, and again I understand that this is still not as efficient as Fossil Fuels but it WILL be, and I will be there, yes friends, making a big fat fortune doing it to.

Just as someone once said "plastics" I say now "Hydrogen'.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate\";p=\"93221)</div>

The inherent problem with using hydrogen as a fuel is that there is no source of pure or free hydrogen available. Hydrogen must be extracted from compunds that contain hydrogen - such as water.

Unfortunately, it takes more energy to seperate hydrogen atoms from compounds than the amount of energy that can be used from those hydrogen atoms.

This is a limitation imposed on the universe by the laws of physics (as we currently understand them.)

Yes, hydrogen is an absolutely "clean" source of energy, but producing that hydrogen places mankind in an energy deficit that requires "unclean" energy sources to produce.

Herb

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kingofgix\";p=\"93073)</div>

I have seen the light and decided that you are absolutely right. There is no way to make hydrogen fuel cells viable. We should just put the technology on a shelf and forget about for a while.

After all, at our current rate of consumption, we won't use up the known oil reserves for 30 to 50 years. Of course, since oil consumption in China and the 3rd world is now beginning to sky rocket, we'll probably use up all the oil a little quicker than that, but hey, we should still have at least 20 years or so. And with hybrids, maybe we can push another 5 to 10 years beyond that.

So we don't need to think, plan, and begin implementing a fossil fuel alternative until then. At that point, if we need hydrogen fuel cell cars, we can just wave our magic wand and replace 100 million cars with fuel cell cars and 100 thousand gas stations with hydrogen stations.

I mean it's really silly to even consider starting to gear up for hydrogen before we run out of oil. Even though we could start introducing hydrogen fuel cell cars into the market, provide hydrogen stations in the big metropolitin areas for commuters, and then gradually extend them out into suburban and rural areas, it would all be just a waste of effort. Because after all, when the time comes when we really need hydrogen, we can just wave that magic wand of ours.

Being short-sighted is just sooooo much easier, so there's really no need to look past the current horizon.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Herb\";p=\"93233)</div>

Yes, initially hydrogen will be produced using fossil fuels. One way is certainly to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity and then use electrolysis to extract hydrogen from water. However the most talked about source is to chemically process Natural Gas into hydrogen (hydro-carbons are just chock full of hydrogen). Either way it doesn't matter in the short term, because you are indeed using fossil fuels, and I'll acknoledge the effeciency loss in the fossil fuel generated electricity for electrolysis method.

However, look past the next 5 to 10 years (or the really the 5 to 10 years after the start of a hydrogen demand). What could we do later?

Well, as someone stated, hydrogen is really just a transportation and storage mechanism for energy. You spend energy in one place to create hydrogen, and then consume to hydrogen somewere else to create energy. 5 to 10 years down the line, where could we get energy to produce hydrogen that doesn't put us into an energy deficit? How about the middle of the ocean?

Out in the open ocean are strong constant winds. Wind is energy. Wind energy in the open ocean is something that we can't use effectively without ... a storage and transportation mechanism for the energy. And, lucky for us, the ocean is made out of water. And if you use wind energy to generate electricity and then send it through the water, you get hydrogen. Hydrogen that you can then ship to land for use in cars and electricity generation.

A german company is looking into doing just that. They're mounting a windmill onto a tanker ship and will use it to generate electricity. Since it's mobile, it can move to where the winds are when the weather changes. See the following article for more information...

Hydrogen-producing ship will use wind

Imagine a fleet of such ships delivering hydrogen to ports just like we now deliver oil to ports.

Now where's the "energy deficit that requires 'unclean' energy sources to produce" in that?

And I know that some will call the hydrogen producing ship approach "idealism". But golly, windmills are a mature technology, electrolysis is a mature technology, and ships are a mature technology. All that is required is to put them together.

 

there is still the problem with fuel cells, MTBF, Mean Time Before Failure, currently running about 1 thousand hours, and the FC industry is saying they are shooting for a quadrupling of that time. We have forklifts in our fleet, ICE ones, with upwards of 20,000 hours and still no failures. If you average 40 miles per hour for 1 thousand hours what have you got 40,000 miles for $35,000 dollars? whose going to buy this? no one. This still doesn't take into account no refueling infrastructure. There are some fundamental problems that are probably not going to be over come for the foreseeable future.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jaguar88\";p=\"92846)</div>

Not even in the ballpark.

Hydrogen can exist as a liquid (Under incredible pressures and cryogenic temps), as a solid (Under incredibly incredible fantastic pressures, or as an inefficient hydride), or as a gas.

One U.S. gallon of regular unleaded contains around 131 MJ (Mega Joule) of energy. One kg of hydrogen contains 142 MJ of energy, but only in "pure" form.

A 91.2 litre lab cylinder at 2,200 psi will store 1.6 MJ/litre of H2, about the same energy density in 8.2 litres of gasoline. At 10,000 psi, you can get up to 5.3 MJ/litre.

The problem is that hydrogen doesn't adhere to the Ideal Gas Law very well. That is, if you double the pressure, you do NOT double the amount. At 10,000 psi, H2 only has 2/3 the gas density of an "ideal" gas. At 20,000 psi, only 1/2 the gas density.

Hydrides (Solids like metals with excess H2 bound) are ok and far safer. Lanthanum nickel hydride (LaNi5H6) is a common hydride, it can dehydride and rehydride in 10 mins. Unfortunately, it only has 1.4% H2 by weight: 5kg of H2 needs 360kg of LaNi5H6.

Liquid storage should be off the board. H2 vaporizes at -253 C. As a cryo, it's energy density is 10 MJ/litre. Remember that 1 litre of regular unleaded contains 34.7 MJ of energy.

Who knows, maybe one day we'll all be adding kitchen scraps to our vehicle Mr. Fusion, and this will be exciting research to be sure. It also opens the possibility of something the size of a regular Stanley coffee thermos vaporizing NYC.

More information:

http://www.tipmagazine.com/tip/INPHFA/vol-.../iss-1/p20.html

 

This is a great thread.

While I'm not particularly knowledgeable about H cells, I feel I must correct a statement several people have made about solar cells.

The solar cells being made today don't need a sunny day to recharge. They use UV rays to recharge, and as anyone who has gotten a sunburn on a cloudy day knows, UV rays will penetrate clouds.

One particular solar light we are looking at here at work will hold a 6 hour charge for 3 days, and it recharges whether it is cloudy or sunny.

You may return to your regularly scheduled discussion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GreenLady\";p=\"93304)</div>

Heres one for you...

You may one day be making your own hydrogen at home using photoelectrochemical reactions. Alternatively, a larger scale system installed at a hydrogen refueling station could produce the hydrogen in place.

Sunlight to Fuel Hydrogen Future

From the article:
---------------------------------------------
Hydrogen Solar is creating consumer and industrial applications that extend research performed by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University of Geneva, according to Auty. He said a system on a home's garage roof that is 10 percent efficient could provide enough hydrogen for a fuel-cell car to drive 11,000 miles per year. "The market will have a niche in the home, as people will be able to install their own systems and run their vehicles using the hydrogen produced during daylight hours," he said.

...

Turner said it's important to turn up the heat on hydrogen research now. "In 2030 we're not going to have enough oil, natural gas and coal to meet our energy needs ... and hydrogen is the best carrier" for an alternative fuel.

 

This is what gets me about hydrogen. Forget that initially you have to use fossil fuels or something else to produce the hydrogen. Since there is no free hydrogen it has to come from somewhere else. Water.

We're just trading one limited resource for another.

How long after we start aggressively mining the ocean (and it better be the ocean) for hydrogen will we start to see an increase in salinity? Because at the same time we're doing that, the oceans will also be supplying an increasing amount of drinking water. Also increasing salinity.

Hydrogen is the answer eventually. As soon as we start mining Jupiter's atmosphere.

In the mean time I think we better be looking at solar for a LOT of stuff. Nor should we ignore wind or geothermal. There are other nations way ahead of the U.S. in use of both wind and geothermal.

Bottom line. We need to start weaning the American public off of oil. Increased hybrid use is a good start. Improving the hybrids to use more electricity and less gas, improve batteries, plug it in to your own private rooftop grid. All of those things. We also need to start moving an entire generation of Americans off of the very things that make cars wasteful. Do we really need that big an engine? Do we really need to go 120 mph when the speed limit is 55? (Yes, I think it should go back to 55 for conservation alone) Do we need a "muscle" car? Does it have to have extra power just in case we might need it? Enough hoarding. Enough overkill. Use what you need, need what you use.

Yes, that would mean carpooling and public transportation. But at least using a car that uses less is a move in that direction. Those cars with single drivers and no passengers are going to be out there. So make sure they are the most efficient cars possible.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva\";p=\"93346)</div>

There are many problems with hydrogen. Running out of it -- if produced from water -- is not one of them.

When hydrogen burns, it combines with O2 to form H2O. That H20 will form clouds. Then it will rain. It's pretty much impossible to store that much hydrogen such that it would affect the water level in our oceans. In fact, the open spaces that are formed in places like Saudi Arabia when they take the oil out of the ground, generally does not leave giant caves underground where the oil once was. That open space is filled with sea water, usually. And I don't see that affecting sea levels.

There may be a problem with hydrogen leaking before it gets burned. It is very light and will fly up to the stratosphere pretty fast. Hydrogen may affect the ozone layer, though it takes a real lot of it to do so.

 

Have any of you ever actually seen a fuel-cell vehicle operating?

A ton of seemingly harmless H2O comes out of the tailpipe. It's not a vapor. It's not a drip. It's a trickling stream of clean water... which is enough to cause all the highways in the northern states to become ice staking rinks in the winter.

Here in Minnesota, we call the build-up of vapor that instantly freeze due to the extreme cold in the winter "Black Ice". It's only a very thin layer, but it causes horrible traffic problems. Imagine a layer of "Fuel-Cell Ice" an order of magnitude thicker coating our roads.

That "clean water" by-product creates an awful situation that not a single official has ever addressed.

Fuel-Cell vehicles have a number of serious problems to overcome still. This is one that clearly should not be taken lightly.