NationStates Jolt Archive

I dunno if anyone's posted this yet, but:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/03/09/cars.hydrogen.popsci/index.html

If it ever becomes widely available, pretty frickin sweet.

Doesn't hydrogen production have a negative ROI?

Doesn't hydrogen production have a negative ROI?
Return on investment or Republic of Ireland? Yes, it takes more power to make and transport hydrogen fuel than can be extracted from it. A tank of hydrogen also won't get you as far as a equally sized tank of gas except if the hydrogen were under high pressure which would make it dangerous.

Return on investment or Republic of Ireland? Yes, it takes more power to make and transport hydrogen fuel than can be extracted from it. A tank of hydrogen also won't get you as far as a equally sized tank of gas except if the hydrogen were under high pressure which would make it dangerous.

No more dangerous than a tank of gas. Less so, in fact, because a punctured hydrogen tank will release the gas so fast that most of it disipates before igniting. You are right, however about the transportation. Hydrogen is not really an energy source, it is an energy storage medium. Seeing as a great deal of US electrical power comes from coal, hydrogen doesn't do all that much for CO2 (the northwest and Quebec are notable exceptions, where hydrogen can put spinning hydroelectric turbines to use in off-peak times) There needs to be a generation and delivery infrastructure before hydrogen will offer any sort of environmental return. It does, however, offer energy security returns from the get-go.

The thing is that there are no fuel stations for it yet. And until you can actually fill the thing up, I'm not sure I'd want one.

Also, there is at least one car (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,448648,00.html) that can run on hydrogen available already. Problem is that it's crap...

A bit about hydrogen cars: http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/stragegy.htm

We're better off using hydrogen to enhance biofuels production; I read an article recently that by using hydrogen-enhanced production of biofuels we can meet all of our liquid fuels needs with alternative sources. I believe it can also be used in CTL to produce fuel as well. Simply put, liquid fuels are the best way to run these vehicles, and it makes far more sense to achieve petroleum-free transportation using the methods that work the best (hybrids+biofuels, preferably biobutanol) than to try and pursue hydrogen at this point in time. Hydrogen will be useful once commercial fusion is developed, but that's a good 40-50 years away at best.

Hydrogen is far better suited to enhancing production of other alternatives than it is running infrastructure on its own. Its economic and energy competitiveness compared to butanol, ethanol or biodiesel is sorely lacking, and the cost of establishing a hydrogen infrastructure comparable to our petroleum one is prohibitively expensive.

That's especially marked when you consider butanol, presumably the future source of our LDV fuels (not ethanol, which is more of a step towards butanol than a replacement for oil in and of itself) can be used in conventional gasoline engines, is significantly energy positive, and is producible from biomass. It is also capable of being shipped by conventional pipelines and stored/distributed in existing infrastructure.

Return on investment or Republic of Ireland? Yes, it takes more power to make and transport hydrogen fuel than can be extracted from it. A tank of hydrogen also won't get you as far as a equally sized tank of gas except if the hydrogen were under high pressure which would make it dangerous.

(first, hello, first time here at the forum).

You're correct. If you're supplying NASA, that is.

The problem is, people look at hydrogen, and they see 2 forms it can be stored. As a gas, or a liquid. Either, has a problem when a large amount is released in a short period of time. The Gas, can turn your car into the new roadside iceberg, or the liquid might end up a fireball on the road, reminiscent of a pinto.

In reality, let's take a household emergency item and use it as a prime example to compare just how PROPER hydrogen storage, checks out on the safety list, AND the efficiency tests.

When the lights go out, we go for candles and oil lamps, oil lamps have a base filled with oil, and if you were to throw a match in a bowl full of it, you would have a serious problem on your hands. However, there is a wick (usually about the size of a stick of gum), that extracts the liquid in moderate amounts, and also allows for a safe and contained flame.

The same applies with hydrogen, if you want to throw it all at a flame, or use it for target practice, sure you will have problems. But if you line the inside of the tank with a sponge & extraction system, you can turn it into a flaming cannister with holes that give it the swiss cheese look. No explosion, no instant igloo.

Now, that I've explained how it can be stored safely, let me explain the economy of a PROPERLY configured hydrogen fuel system, integrated into a car. Say you have a car, which gets 20 miles per gallon, with gasoline (unleaded 87) in the city. It will have no problem topping 80 miles per gallon with hydrogen fuel. When you burn hydrogen, you get steam. Much better than the omissions from a gasoline powered car I'd say.

Now, we have safer to use than gasoline, and also more economical, except manufacturing... let's get on with that now.

All the average person would need (unless they haul 40'+ tractor trailers), is a hydrogen generator in their garage. About the size of a mediocre bookshelf, it would manufacture tanks of hydrogen, and store it safely in the tanks. Those tanks, could then be placed in your car, and you could have refuel tanks in the back for longer trips. It would take about 3 days of processing, to manufacture one tank of fuel. That tank of fuel though, at 80 miles per gallon, would get you roughly 300 miles of travel. 100 miles a day should suit the average person; granted they don't haul cargo or commute excessive distances.

So the answer to the central concern of how economic, efficient, and safe hydrogen fuel systems are... well they are efficient for the majority of commuters and traveling citizens that can maintain 100 miles or less a day. However, it would be a royal pain in the @$$ for any petrol company to make a profit manufacturing it. Simply, hydrogen could put them out of business. We have a lot more water than crude oil on this earth.

Let's not forget about the other ways of producing energy for use... magnetic re-polarization of neodymium 40 grade magnetic rods, magnifying transmitters set up to convert their transmissions by a polyphase 3 stage generator.

One things for sure though. We won't make much progress in the future hiding behind fossil fuels, and a pack of AA batteries (I don't like Direct Current... has the lifespan (not shelf life) of a housefly...)

Anyways, a long post but it's worth the read. In all honesty you could power you entire house with a box no bigger than what little johnny takes to lunch.

Update:

To the user aboves comment regarding ethanol... I would hate to see the day it's put into production. I just can't stand to think of all of the vehicle owners with aluminum based or alloy gas tanks, that are going to get a very unpleasant reaction when ethanol works its magic with the aluminum.

snip

You still haven't addressed the fact that it requires energy input to manufacture hydrogen. If you are using a generator in your house, that has an electricity draw. Where does the electricity come from? The power plant - which likely runs on some sort of fossil fuel.

Hydrogen fuel cells are, as said before, an energy storage medium. Hydrogen can't be mined. Fossil fuels will continue to dominate because you get more energy from them than it takes to mine them.

Sugar cane ethanol is also a possibility. Corn ethanol is not, at least not until we can find a way to digest cellulose into a sugar like termites and some bacteria can.

Sugar cane ethanol is a problem because growing a lot of it means taking a machete and torch to a lot of rainforest land.

As I see it, the solutions are:
- Use hydrogen fuel cells to store energy produced by renewable energy sources (tidal, geothermal, solar, wind) or nuclear energy.
- Develop a process which mimics the bacterial digestion of cellulose to make an easy to grow crop into a fuel source.
- Develop a process which mimics the biological process in plants which splits water in order to generate hydrogen.

In Soviet Russia, ethanol uses YOU!!!

As far as biofuels go, I don't support there use because they use arable land that should be used for food crops. I would hate to see African farmers switching to biofuel production. I can't remember where it happened, but I'm quite convinced that somewhere in Africa, famines were caused when farmers started producing luxury crops instead of staples.

Even though at present hydrogen cars will effectively emit carbon dioxide because the energy will come from burning coal, they solve the problems of urban pollution while biofuels don't, and there is always the capacity to produce hydrogen using renewables.



EDIT: A quick Google search came up with this result from Wikipedia
Due to rising demand for biofuels, farmers in countries with limited agricultural potential are enticed to convert from production of food to production of raw material for biofuels. However, in the developing world, where a majority of people are farmers and where a vast mass of unused agricultural land exists, the biofuels opportunity may benefit millions of farmers and fuel economic development. If managed in a careless manner, the situation may lead to a rise in food prices, which may hurt others.

In early 2007 there were a number of reports linking stories as diverse as food riots in Mexico due to rising prices of corn for tortillas and reduced profits at Heineken[5], the large international brewer, to the increasing use of corn (maize) grown in the US Midwest for bio-ethanol production

old old old news. if and when the cost of the proccess of manufacturing the fuel cells can be brought within reason that will be newsworthy. until then it's just one more pie in the sky sideshow.

hydrogen is dangerous period, and as yet also, innefficient in the sense of the amount of power the comes out of it vs the amount it takes to prepare it as fuel.

burning of anything isn't 'the' answer. not even atoms. and neither are cars.

we have proven alternatives, the're just not currently as convenient to those who want to maintain centralized exploitation and control.

so to weasel out of doing so, to continue the concentration of wealth at the expense of everyone, both human and the environment, they keep giving us these myrical sideshow distractions. i'm surprised the bushites arn't proposing perpetual motion, they must think we're all most of us that gullable.

=^^=
.../\...

There needs to be a generation and delivery infrastructure before hydrogen will offer any sort of environmental return. It does, however, offer energy security returns from the get-go.

quite. if i were to say, say, 150 years ago "lets power this car with petrol" people would have turned around and said "that's crazy... you've got to ship it from the bloody middle east and then you've got to process the crude oil! crazy!"

so just because an efficient network is not yet in place for a new, widely unused fuel source, doesn't mean that efficiency cannot be reached, and its hardly surprising it isn't yet.


i do want that car. it looks kinda like the car i want (http://images.intellichoice.com/images/AutoShows/Big/112_05fas_honda_civic_s.jpg) (also a honda) which is cool :)

natural gas is a widely use fuel source. As soon as cosmetic energy production comes online with increase of solar cells and otherwise net energy can be applied to something as simple as steam electrolysis to yield oxygen and hydrogen.

Models that address salt water to steam generation in certain environments (hot ones) can do this with natural steam purification. .on top of this the solar energy and steam power are generated at the same sites.. so energy can then be spent to create liquid oxygen and hydrogen (natural gas)

there are tons of other methods as well. these are cheap sources of energy.. very cheap. (have you ever seen the ocean.. that is hydrogen) Pipeline anyone?

well they exist around the world. they will attempt to keep prices high though. they always do. what is real cost of oil? (a lot less)

what is the real cost of most multi billion dollar industries.. look at their profits and payrates to find out.

The models I designed run from methane/hydrogen predominantly 0 emissions

it is safe. I have no idea what you guys are taking about.. we have this big ball of net energy perpetually occuring called the sun. ROI.. the only loss is price gouging based on petrol and increased wear and tear by conventional polluting vehicles .. if you look at the actual benefits as would exist with lowered cancer caused by bad air quality and other health benefits society save loads of cash, it is just old money controlling the social program. Alternative fuels are cheaper than traditional fuels (it is just that big companies and the people won't be willing to socially organize a quick change.. only laws forcing change would do that... but they arn't willing to rock the boat.. it's already out there

quite. if i were to say, say, 150 years ago "lets power this car with petrol" people would have turned around and said "that's crazy... you've got to ship it from the bloody middle east and then you've got to process the crude oil! crazy!"

so just because an efficient network is not yet in place for a new, widely unused fuel source, doesn't mean that efficiency cannot be reached, and its hardly surprising it isn't yet.

i do want that car.

for the most part what you are saying is absolutely true.
although it also ignores what is really going on here.

and we all want all sorts of things
there are some though, if we all had them, would be the death of all of us.

the "i" problem just might be at the root of all of them.
not that we can't all have means of gratification, but we do need to rethink
our common assumptions about familiar means of persuing it.

it ISN'T all about just what we do or don't put into the air, although that is a very big part of it, but it's also about where what's in the air that we need, comes from.

=^^=
.../\...

As far as biofuels go, I don't support there use because they use arable land that should be used for food crops.

Since when is refined feces and sewer sludge Land where crops need to be, also you can make plants outside fields, stacked, or otherwise, on top of buildings, the list goes on.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12459368']
it is safe. I have no idea what you guys are taking about.. we have this big ball of net energy perpetually occuring called the sun.

That's not true. The sun won't burn perpetually. Just until it runs out of fuel to sustain the reaction.

ICCD-Intracircumcordei;12459368']
ROI.. the only loss is price gouging based on petrol and increased wear and tear by conventional polluting vehicles

If you mean hydrogen fuel? That's a negative ROI. The current refining methods for getting hydrogen from water take out more energy than the yield. Solar at this point still needs further refinement and some way of being constructed out of cheaper and more common materials.

BMW and Mazda have had fully working hydrogen prototypes (a 7-series and an RX-7 respectively) for a good while now.

You still haven't addressed the fact that it requires energy input to manufacture hydrogen. If you are using a generator in your house, that has an electricity draw. Where does the electricity come from? The power plant - which likely runs on some sort of fossil fuel.


(I'm posting this line of text as a notice, I won't say this again. Store the hydrogen chemically bonded with hydrides and NOT as a compressed gas or liquid! THIS is where the negative ROI occurs!)

Ok, allow me to address that now then.

Many of the people here are talking about negative ROI's. This is under the assumption that you will be inputting an effort that will have a cost of production, such as fossil fuels. Limited supply of coal, crude oil, etc...

The really neat part is, hydrogen doesn't require anything we don't already have. I'm sure (all who are in on the discussion) are aware of just what hydrogen is, simply water, where the hydrogen gas has been extracted after an electronic charge has been properly input. Now, it's not a question of mining here. In mining terms, our earth is 70%+ filled with water, an abundance of it. This is why I say hydrogen should have more attention - because once the logistics are figured out, supply and demand won't be an issue - and the resources are not only there, but they will replenish themselves naturally. (hydrogen, merges with more oxygen, and creates more water, which takes on the cycle we all learned in 3rd grade).

The problem IS powering the means of conversion - a "hydrogen generator". With one of the more efficient designs, you would need a minimal standard of 400 watts of power, which is right on par with the computer right in front of you. But let's be more conservative, double that figure. 800 watts for a respectable generators operation. It takes one of these household generators roughly 48 hours to fill one tank, and it takes roughly 4 tanks to properly supply a vehicle. That's roughly, a week. 4 hydrogen fuel cells/tanks are capable of supplying an average car, with the capabilities of traveling roughly 350 miles. That's roughly 44 miles per day economic efficiency. You can't tell me that a considerable percentile of the population wouldn't benefit from hydrogen for day to day traveling...

We have a small hand full of issues - thats ALL.

*Generator
*Power
*Supply and Demand

Now are you really willing to tell me that reduction of at least half the crude oil refineries production and resources, are going to be a serious negative return of investment by the simple energy requirements of a household electrical product? Think about the math here... $300 in gas per month, or an extra $10 on the electric bill? Plus the safety benefits we all receive by storing hydrogen fuel with metal hydrides.

In all honesty if you wanted to get a bid radical here, you could power the thing on solar panels.

It's not impossible, rather just taboo in the eyes of Opec...

Electric is the way to go.

Electric is the way to go.

Seconded. Hydrogen will have some niche applications, but it's just not economically feasible as a replacement for fossil fuels.

When I was in 12th grade, around 2+ years ago, I drove a prototype hydrogen fuel stack Honda. I don't remember the model name. I used to have cool pamphlets and all that. :(

Seconded. Hydrogen will have some niche applications, but it's just not economically feasible as a replacement for fossil fuels.

Electric is good, but only if it's Alternating Current. Direct Current in my opinion is a waste of time, now if one wanted to complain about inefficient energy, Direct Current is an excellent start. It's good for powering an mp3 player, but useless beyond that.

Again, you're criticizing hydrogen with just a little over half the options on the table, you're leaving out a third of the potential when making your assertion.