Interesting hydrogen generation scheme

[werepossum]

Generating cheap hydrogen has never been an issue. Storing and pressurizing it has.

What ways currently exist to generate cheap hydrogen in practical quantities? Personally I'm aware of none.

I know Norway uses a fair amount of hydrogen generated by electrolysis, but that's always a net energy loss. That's fine for Norway, but most nations don't have a lot of cheap excess oil to burn to generate electricity to split off hydrogen to use in place of oil. And last I heard, its break-even point with gasoline was roughly $7.50 per gallon. That might seem reasonable to nations with POL artificially expensive due to high taxes, but not to low tax nations like America.

 

[a777pilot]

It is but, how exactly do you plan on turning the generated hydrogen gas into liquid hydrogen? Last I heard that required vast amounts of energy.

How much more energy is needed?

So....

I don't know. I was hoping that mass nuclear power would be a practical answer.

 

[a777pilot]

Other than the problem of its low density, solid hydrogen would be easier and safer to work with in most applications. Analogous to dry ice.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

How much more energy is needed?

So....

I don't know. I was hoping that mass nuclear power would be a practical answer.

It requires more energy than the amount of liquid hydrogen that is created produces. So, it is a losing proposition.

 

[Moonbeam]

The real potential of hydrogen as I see it are in the home, solar produced hydrogen for fuel cell electricity generation. The hydrogen could be produced by this new technology itself and stored by the new methods also suggested in this thread or the car can just be electric and charged at home. The reason this technology is a good one for the use in a home is that hydrogen production with excess electricity created during daylight produces power at night when the sun is down. Googling Dr Nocera at MIT and his cheap water splitting catalyst will explain how all of this works.

As far as the dangers of hydrogen, don't forget that gasoline is used to make bombs. It's not like you aren't driving on your own personal crematorium all the time.

 

[Moonbeam]

It requires more energy than the amount of liquid hydrogen that is created produces. So, it is a losing proposition.

New methods of hydrogen absorption make it relatively safe while providing the ability to reach a 300 mile per tank range. It doesn't take much energy to create a wet sponge or much to squeeze it to get the water out.

 

[herm0016]

HYDROGEN IS NOT A FUEL!!!!!!!!!!

grumblegrumble.....

its only a way to transfer energy. Nat. Gas and Oil are FUELS.

 

[Moonbeam]

Other than the problem of its low density, solid hydrogen would be easier and safer to work with in most applications. Analogous to dry ice.

Metallic hydrogen is predicted to be a proton electron liquid and will require pressures greaten than at the center of the earth to create. It's not going to be used any time soon on this planet as an energy conductor, I don't think.

Also carbon dioxide goes straight from a gas to a solid and has no liquid state at under 5 atmospheres.

Ice water is less dense than the liquid water otherwise the bottoms of the oceans would be frozen.

 

[Moonbeam]

HYDROGEN IS NOT A FUEL!!!!!!!!!!

grumblegrumble.....

its only a way to transfer energy. Nat. Gas and Oil are FUELS.

Why? What is the difference. If you google hydrogen fuel you see it listed as a fuel with oil and gas. Hydrogen is a way to transfer energy but so is gasoline.

 

[Howard]

Why? What is the difference. If you google hydrogen fuel you see it listed as a fuel with oil and gas. Hydrogen is a way to transfer energy but so is gasoline.

He is right, if you define "fuel" to be an energy source.

 

[Fenixgoon]

HYDROGEN IS NOT A FUEL!!!!!!!!!!

grumblegrumble.....

its only a way to transfer energy. Nat. Gas and Oil are FUELS.

if you combust hydrogen with oxygen, how is that any different than combusting gas/oil with oxygen? both are fuels. as far as i know, it's considered fuel for the space shuttles (RIP)

uranium is a fuel for nuclear plants.

now if you use it in some sort of electrochemical process...is it still a fuel? beats me. i'll leave that up to someone else to nitpick over.

 

[a777pilot]

It requires more energy than the amount of liquid hydrogen that is created produces. So, it is a losing proposition.

Then we are back to gas.

Thanks for the info.

 

[a777pilot]

In the Big Dig that the old Soviet Union did, didn't they find massive amounts of gaseous hydrogen? I remembering reading something about that.

 

[Moonbeam]

He is right, if you define "fuel" to be an energy source.

I would define fuel as something you burn and I would define something you can burn as an energy source.

 

[a777pilot]

p.s., Found it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole

 

[herm0016]

source implies a net increase of energy.

hydrogen has no such increase over is life cycle like oil or natural gas.

hydrogen is an energy transfer mech. just like electricity.
We need to think of hydrogen as analogous to electricity when discussing transportation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Then we are back to gas.

Thanks for the info.

Not necessarily but liquid hydrogen requires cryogenic conditions to maintain. The BMW 7 or something like that explores this as a solution, but compressed hydrogen requires only about 2% of the energy and fuel cells are twice and more efficient that gas engines.

 

[tommo123]

I would define fuel as something you burn and I would define something you can burn as an energy source.

isn't it just an energy storage medium? like a battery considering you need nuclear power or some such to actually get the hydrogen?

 

[herm0016]

and we are not burning the hydrogen in most cases either.

 

[airdata]

if it were feasible and cost efficient, a big oil corporation would buy the patents and bury the tech.

 

[feralkid]

Good point. I wonder if it would be cheaper, easier and safer to store and use liquefied hydrogen vice the gas.

LOL! I think you were searching for "versus". Why is that so difficult for you to say?

 

[werepossum]

source implies a net increase of energy.

hydrogen has no such increase over is life cycle like oil or natural gas.

hydrogen is an energy transfer mech. just like electricity.
We need to think of hydrogen as analogous to electricity when discussing transportation.

That's true if we are using hydrogen obtained by using some other energy source, such as using electricity to break the hydrogen-oxygen bonds and then later allowing it to recombine with oxygen for the released energy. It's arguably true with this method, as we are using solar energy to refine the hydrogen into a usable fuel, but then, that is also the case for oil and natural gas under the current prevailing theories of their creation. Whether oil and natural gas are formed from primary producers or their predators, they are still mass built using solar energy via photosynthesis. So this method would be directly analogous to using oil and natural gas, except for being a man-made process. If and when we can crack hydrogen free from water by using enzymes or other catalytic action independent of solar energy, then hydrogen would be much more of a fuel than are oil and natural gas, since no solar energy would be transferred into the hydrogen.

In my opinion we've become far too concerned with not calling hydrogen a fuel due to the method currently most prevalent in obtaining hydrogen, which loses net energy and is properly creating a transfer medium. At its essence, hydrogen is neither more nor less of a fuel than are oil and natural gas.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nukes are fine for areas requiring a lot of power in a small area, but alternatives to grid based technologies should be used whenever possible. In fact it should be a priority.

 

[Moonbeam]

and we are not burning the hydrogen in most cases either.

If you are turning hydrogen gas into water you are burning it. Burning is oxidation.

 

[Moonbeam]

isn't it just an energy storage medium? like a battery considering you need nuclear power or some such to actually get the hydrogen?

Right, when you create hydrogen gas from water you create a fuel with the same potential energy as it took to create. It is an energy transfer device and the significance of that fact is it's storage capacity, the ability to get solar energy when the sun isn't shining. Hydrogen fuel cell technology means you can become your own power station if you have a roof, no need for some massive new power distribution station from desert to city, etc. The only problem will be bringing costs in line with natural gas and then coal. Base load needs for nuclear will be a thing of the past. The major problem with solar as universal solution to our energy needs are the hours where there's no sun and cost.

A 14 mile by 14 mile solar farm can supply California's entire electricity needs with current technology. The area of water behind hydro dams is greater than that.