more on Solar production of Hydrogen

[greenman3610]

Water-splitting solar panels would have important advantages over existing technologies in terms of hydrogen production. Right now, the primary way to make hydrogen is to separate it from natural gas, a process that generates carbon dioxide and undercuts the main motivation for moving to hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles: ending dependence on fossil fuels. The current alternative is electrolysis, which uses electricity to break water into hydrogen and oxygen, with the two gases forming at opposite electrodes. Although electrolysis is costly, it can be cleaner if the source of the electricity is wind, sun, or some other carbon-free source.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17887&ch=energy

[On the Road]

1. If Hydrogen is Ever Going to Make an Impact,

It's got be produced either by solar or biological processes. Glad to see there are breakthroughs being made.

[Posteritatis]

30. And on that note...

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_1-12-2006-11-4-23?newsid=3016

Scientists have combined two molecules that occur naturally in blood to engineer a molecular complex that uses solar energy to produce hydrogen gas from water, says research published today in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

This molecular complex can use energy from the sun to create hydrogen gas, providing an alternative to electrolysis, the method typically used to split water into its constituent parts. The breakthrough may pave the way for the development of novel ways of creating hydrogen gas for use as fuel in the future.

Unlike a lot of these potential energy breakthroughs these days, this one's got at least one publication to back itself up too:

http://pubs3.acs.org/acs/journals/doilookup?in_doi=10.1021/ja0656806

I'm too much of a layman to comment on it in any real detail (and I don't have a subscription to ACS), but it looks like something worth being optimistic about. It's a step away from electrolysis, at least.

[wtmusic]

2. The entire hydrogen program is a scam

to keep us addicted to fossil fuel. It was 15-20 years away 15 years ago; it is 15-20 years away now. It will always be so, thanks to the short attention span of the American consumer. Its endorsement by W effectively killed the electric car just when GM inadvertently demonstrated EVs are viable.

[rman]

5. even the part that isn't fossil fuel based?

[wtmusic]

6. Hydrogen fuel is very "fossil-fuel" based

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=hydrogen-en&FC2=/hydrogen-en/html/iwgen/leftnavs/zzz_lhn2_0_0.html&FC3=/hydrogen-en/html/iwgen/about_shell/who_we_are_1208.html
Either companies like Shell are working agressively to build a better future, or they're working aggressively to keep your eye off the ball.

Would I lie?

[rman]

8. not the part that's not fossil fuel based - see the OP

[wtmusic]

13. Solar production of anything we can use is great

but hydrogen-powered anything is a smokescreen to move the public away from electric vehicles.

"Anything hydrogen can do, electricity can do better."

It's really that simple.

onedit correction: one day could possibly be viable for fleet vehicles and mass transit. But even that is far, far away.

[rman]

23. "Anything hydrogen can do, electricity can do better." - depends

where your hydrogen is coming from, and where your electricity is coming from.

Sun light to hydrogen seems to be quite a bit more efficient than sun light to electricity to hydrogen.

Electricity from fossil fuels is no good when you're out of fossil fuel (which we will be at some point).

And hydrogen may as of yet be the most efficient way to store electricity. Expensive, sure, but there's good reason why the space shuttle uses fuel cells and not batteries.

I agree that replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen (or anything else for that matter) is a long way of. But it is a viable technology rather than a scam. How far away it is depends on the amount of funding for the research.

[wtmusic]

27. The op's process actually IS sunlight -> electricity -> hydrogen

why not skip the last step?

Though hydrogen has shown promise as a storage medium for electricity (Nickel-metal-hydride batteries, for example) it doesn't involve the combustion (oxidization) of H₂, which is where danger/moving parts disadvantages show up.

I may be wrong but I think the main reason fuel cells were used on the shuttle was because batteries tend to fail at low temperatures.

If you haven't seen "Who Killed the Electric Car?"

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/

or read Joseph Romm's "The Hype About Hydrogen"

http://www.amazon.com/Hype-About-Hydrogen-Fiction-Climate/dp/1559637048/sr=8-1/qid=1166286632/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-4277214-1061613?ie=UTF8&s=books

both are enlightening as to what the real motives behind hydrogen power are.

[rman]

38. How are you going to store the electricity?

Hydrogen fuel cell is one of the more efficient technologies.

[wtmusic]

40. A hydrogen fuel cell doesn't store electricity

It burns hydrogen. As far as storing the energy as chemical energy in H₂, it's more efficient to store the electricity in batteries (and use it soon) than go through the added step of electrolyzing water.

[rman]

41. the "burning" of hydrogen in a fuel cell creates electricity -

the reverse of electrolysis. I'll grant you that the process of oxidizing hydrogen is essentially "burning" hydrogen. But it's not for the purpose of creating heat, it is to create electricity - hardly a triviality.
I had gotten the impression that you realized that the fuel cells on the space shuttle were used as an alternative to electrical batteries? What point would there be to "burning hydrogen" on the space shuttle other than to create electricity?

"A fuel cell converts the chemicals hydrogen and oxygen into water, and in the process it produces electricity."
http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm

[madokie]

3. If the quest for hydrogen fuel was funded more agressively I believe

we could indeed one day be driving hydrogen powered vehicles, the more money you had the bigger it could be, that in itself ought to appeal to the :puke:s in this world

[wtmusic]

4. Hydrogen vehicles currently cost $1,000,000

• the fuel is dangerous to store
• it is 2-5 times as expensive as gasoline
• its range is limited
• there is no infrastructure whatsoever to deliver the fuel

In short, it's the perfect fuel for diverting attention from electric vehicles and plugin hybrids, which are practical for 90% of drivers now.

[rman]

7. hydrogen is not dangerous to store

see fuel cells
http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell.htm

[wtmusic]

10. from your link:

"Hydrogen has some limitations that make it impractical for use in most applications. For instance, you don't have a hydrogen pipeline coming to your house, and you can't pull up to a hydrogen pump at your local gas station.

Hydrogen is difficult to store and distribute, so it would be much more convenient if fuel cells could use fuels that are more readily available."

another source:
"Hydrogen is much more dangerous: As dangerous as a leak of natural gas is, a hydrogen leak is worse because hydrogen ignites at a wider range of concentrations and requires less energy to ignite. And hydrogen burns invisibly. "It's scary—you cannot see the flame, " says Michael D. Amiridis, chair of the Chemical Engineering Department at the University of South Carolina."

http://www.hybridcars.com/related-technologies/hydrogen.html

5. Handling hydrogen can be dangerous. Remember the Hindenberg. Pure hydrogen is unstable and oxidizes easily, which makes it extremely combustible. Thus long-distance transport of hydrogen, say, to fill hydrogen fueling stations, is potentially dangerous.

http://www.rppi.org/scienceofhydrogen.html

[rman]

25. sure it has issues, but fuel cells are a safe way to store hydrogen

when it is used as a fuel for transport.

[HuskiesHowls]

9. Remember the Hindenburg!! n/t

[wtmusic]

14. That wasn't hydrogen burning, it was the paint on the Hindenburg:

"Secondly, an article at another Hydrogen fuel site stated that the destruction of the Hindenburg was not caused by the explosion of Hydrogen; rather, the paint on the external skin caught fire due to a chemical reaction."

http://www.ecoworld.com/energy/fuel_cell_letters.cfm

The denial of these people is amazing.

[dkofos]

11. This is a step in the right direction, but not for cars.

Hydrogen on demand systems for cars is.

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/061212/20061212005962.html?.v=1

HyPower Develops Hydrogen Technology to Power Vehicle from Water
Tuesday December 12, 4:01 pm ET

WILMINGTON, Del.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--HyPower Fuel Inc. (OTCPK:HYPF) is pleased to announce that the company has equipped a Volkswagen GTi with its H2 Reactor (H2R) hydrogen system that can produce sufficient hydrogen on board, on demand to power the vehicle using only water. The H2 Reactor uses the process of electrolysis to convert water into a hydrogen/oxygen gas which is then used to power its original internal combustion engine.

[wtmusic]

12. Electrolysis uses more energy than it delivers

This is a hoax.

[dkofos]

15. If that is what you want to believe

[wtmusic]

16. Unfortunately it's a fact

These water-power visionaries show up every few years then quietly disappear with someone's hard-earned, well-intentioned money.

[dkofos]

17. They said it was impossible for man to fly also.

[wtmusic]

19. Simple physics

Men can't fly under their own power.

Your water-powered car is the same.

[dkofos]

21. Who said anything about their own power

And actually that has been done.
Remember the Gossamer Albatross?

[wtmusic]

22. You're right -- men can fly under their own power

Your car can't. Period. End of story. Electrolysis takes more energy than it produces. You're pulling energy out of thin air, which violates the first law of thermodynamics:

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

On the other hand, feel free to invest in it. You wouldn't be the first.

[dkofos]

24. Believe what you want.

What they are doing is not basic electrolysis.

[Zynx]

31. Any non-nuclear process is an energy sink, not a producer

Very basic physical law here.

[rman]

26. Any process uses more energy than it delivers

I.e. any electrical power plant produces less energy in the form of electricity than the amount of energy put in in the form of natural gas, oil or uranium.

There is no process that produces more energy than is put into it.

To use that as an argument to promote the idea that hydrogen is a "hoax" (as in fake, nor for real), is disingenuous.

[wtmusic]

29. No, it's a tried and true hoax

and one of the more effective ones. I'm probably not explaining it well, being only an amateur physicist and not the real deal (calling NNadir?)

In the case of a power plant you are turning potential energy contained within the molecular structure of methane, propane, and other organic compounds into electricity.

Water (to date) has no net potential chemical energy. With electrolysis, you must use energy to liberate the hydrogen from it. Not coincidentally, EXACTLY the same energy is created when you oxidize the hydrogen, changing it back into water (minus, of course the energy lost as heat in any imperfect system). The "minus" part means you actually have to apply energy to make this "water engine" run. We're back at square one (or square -1).

[rman]

34. I see your point, but it would not be a problem if

you'd have an abundant, virtually free and practically infinity source of energy. I'll be the last person to say that there's any point to using fossil fuel to make hydrogen in order to power cars. That's just an elaborate way to waste yet more fossil fuel.

But solar to hydrogen in one step just seems to be a very efficient way to store some of the energy that comes from the sun. Even solar to electric to hydrogen is attractive because hydrogen fuel cells are efficient batteries, and the original source of the energy is virtually free.

[johnaries]

44. Sorry, but you are very, very confused.

1. Fuel Cell cars, hydrogen or otherwise, ARE electric. The fuel cells have an extended range and you don't have to spend time re-charging the batteries.
2. Fuel cells do not burn hydrogen. They use a chemical process to create electricity.
3. As has already been pointed out, ALL processes use more energy than they produce except solar, wind power, geothermal, and hydroelectric. However, none of these are practical to power a car.
4. Hydrogen is SAFER than other mediums. It does not explode. It is lighter than air, so if it does catch on fire the fire floats up. It was the propane tanks for the propellers on the Hindenberg that exploded.

[wtmusic]

45. Oh, the propane tanks now...

Don't jump to conclusions! Have we considered flammable hair tonic used by the pilot? :crazy:

Hydrogen fuel cells do indeed burn hydrogen. The chemical process you refer to is "oxidation", otherwise known as "burning". Light a match--you'll get the idea. And the fuel cells range is almost identical to a modern EV with lithium ion cells--100-300 miles. Burning propane, hydrogen, gasoline, methane, wood, matches, even hair tonic results in a release of potential energy stored in the bonds in the molecules. The reaction is net-positive from an energy standpoint, so it "uses" no energy whatsoever.

As you may have noticed, water does not burn--in fact there is no known chemical process in which water contributes to a net gain in energy. None. Hence--using water as an energy-positive "fuel" is nonsense.

onedit: Hydrogen is extremely volatile and the Hindenburg was only one of many fatal airship accidents which occurred before designers switched to inert helium (less lift, but not combustible).

[MadHound]

18. Rather than wasting energy on splitting natural gas

And using hydrogen fuel cell, let's cut out the middle step, and derive our electricity from wind, and use it in electrical cars. There is enough harvestable wind energy in three states, North Dakota, Texas and Kansas alone to power all of our electrical needs, including growth factor, through the year 2030. Our potential for wind energy has led the US to labeled as the Saudi Arabia of wind. We have plenty of wind energy, cheap, renewable, and clean. Past time that we started putting it to use.

[IDemo]

20. "Hydrogen on Demand" technology from Millenium Cell

Their 'hydrogen batteries' use "sodium borohydride (NaBH4) as a hydrogen storage medium at power levels ranging from as low as 2 W up to 65 kW.

These systems are light, do not require purifiers, complicated fuel processors or high temperatures; they start quickly and do not emit greenhouse gasses."

They were conducting tests with Ford earlier, using (if I recall) Crown Victorias. They seem to have since moved away from transportation towards smaller applications such as consumer electronics.

www.millenniumcell.com/fw/main/Overview-27.html

[NickB79]

42. And it takes more energy to synthesize sodium borohydride

Than you get from the corresponding reaction that yields hydrogen and sodium borate. The sodium borohydride is a co-fuel in this case, along with water. While water is easy enough to disperse and obtain, the sodium borohydride has be be synthesized, and simple thermodynamics means it will require more energy to make it than it gives up in the reaction. Adding a catalyst lowers the activation energy required, but does not allow a reaction to create more energy than it's reactants contain.

The only way this would work is if you have another source of energy (wind, solar, nuclear, coal, etc) powering the plants to synthesize sodium borohydride to refuel cars with. And in that case, why not just supply the power to the grid and charge electric cars? At best, I could see this as a secondary power source in a futuristic hybrid, where the car still uses an electric engine for it's primary energy source, and only relys on a sodium borohydride engine as a back-up.

[wtmusic]

46. It seems the only advantage

would be if sodium borohydride was convenient to dispense and store. Other than that, it's just another way to reduce efficiency, and we already have many exotic flavors of that.

[jmowreader]

28. Oh God, not this shit again

Hydrogen only makes sense if you've got a vehicle the size of a bus to haul the tank around--which makes municipal buses the perfect vehicles to run on it. A hydrogen-powered bus can also be taken back to the motor pool after it goes out of service and fueled overnight by trained personnel.

Hydrogen in a car? No thanks. I think biodiesel is the perfect alternative fuel for a car (in that we already know how to make a diesel-engine car so there's no new-tech problems, and we can use our existing supply lines to deliver the fuel to the customers), and you can make it from algae.

Electric would be good for people who could afford two cars--an electric "town car" and a "traveling car" with an engine in it. Drive the electric to work, to shopping, to the movies or what have you, and save the traveling car for trips to Grandma's.

[OxQQme]

32. The world is flat, I tell you

unless you have no faith based pre-conceived notions.
There are people working on solutions rather than just "It won't work"ers.
http://oupower.com/
On demand systems require no storage.
Rather than feed several cities with a humungous generator,
it makes more sense to go little, serving self and a neighbor or two,
feeding excess into the grid.

[wtmusic]

33. "over-unity" power -- hallelujah, brother!

Proof that the first law of thermodynamics is going the way of evolution -- straight to the scrapheap!! :rofl:

[OxQQme]

36. Canada see's the light

http://www.chechfi.ca/index.html

[Zynx]

37. Please do not post links to scam websites.

[wtmusic]

39. That site is 100% legit

I asked my Ouija board.

[rman]

35. you mean you never heard of fuel cells

google it

[jmowreader]

47. Of course I've heard of fuel cells

Here's the catch: to move a vehicle at a speed acceptable to its users, you need a lot of power. Let's build a hypothetical car with a fuel cell powertrain and call it a GDCar. Our GDCar needs 40 horsepower to push it down the road, and it's 75 percent efficient. One horsepower is equivalent to 750 watts, so we need 40 kilowatts to make our car do its thing.

A 40kW fuel cell is going to be large and expensive--the ones on fuel-cell-powered buses are mounted where the diesel engine normally goes, and they fill the hole. And you still must haul around a boatload of hydrogen to get the fuel cell to run.

I have been told that some folks would like to generate the hydrogen to run the fuel cell on board the car. Okay, that's feasible...but if you've got THAT much electricity on the car, let's take the electrolyzer and the fuel cell out of the car, sell them to someone else and just plug the battery directly into the traction motors.

The main sticking point to ANY hydrogen fuel system, whether you're burning it or running it through a fuel cell, is the low energy density of hydrogen--one gallon of liquid hydrogen, a very efficient way of storing hydrogen (better than compressing it to 5000 psi), has the same energy density as a quart of gasoline. Hydrogen fans point to the hydrogen-fueled space shuttle as proof hydrogen is a good fuel. I point to the fact that the hydrogen tank inside the External Fuel Tank is nearly as big as the shuttle as proof hydrogen ain't THAT good of a fuel.

I think hydrogen will find its niche, and that niche is in powering buses, passenger trains and other forms of mass transit simply because you need a vehicle the size of a bus to hold the gas tank. So why not start with one?

[Strelnikov_]

43. Studies Indicate Battery Electric Is Twice As Efficient An Energy Carrier

when compared to hydrogen.

Battery electric is a mature technology, proven affordable, with demonstrated improvement in range possible following engineering refinement of recent battery advances. Fuel cells are unproven as a consumer product, with new research breakthroughs required to make them affordable.

Electricity is, well, everywhere. Hydrogen will require construction of a completely new distribution infrastructure.

So, the answer is clear. Hydrogen. After all, Big Oil has to have something to do once the oil runs out.


I can envision a future of FCV/EV hybrids. That is, a generation of small, efficient EV's with a range of, say, 100 mi. For the times extended range is required, this can be supplied by a small fuel cell mounted on a trailer (rental?). Since the cell will only have to supply 'average' power demand, a much smaller cell than that required for a pure FCV vehicle would be possible. Since it is used only occasionally, the inefficiency of ethanol fuel cells would be acceptable, thus bypassing the need for gaseous H2.

In the interim before (if?) the FC generator trailers are cost effective, a conventional IC liquid-fueled generator trailer could be used.

We need to transition to EV’s, today. The past problem with EV’s, the public perception that a PV (personal vehicle) with ‘unlimited’ range is mandatory, will evaporate with the first shocks. In other words, a liquid fueled IC PV is not ‘unlimited’ when there is a 10 gal./wk. ration (or would us liberals prefer rationing by price?).

If FC’s ever become cost effective, it will be relatively easy to slip-stream them into an EV paradigm. Further, the EV’s produced today should be modular allowing easy upgrading to more advanced battery technologies, of even a small FC pack, as they become available.

In the energy starved future, I just don’t see how pure FCV’s will be preferred over the more efficient, and simpler, EV’s.

Carrying the Energy Future
Comparing Hydrogen and Electricity for Transmission, Storage and Transportation
Patrick Mazza and Roel Hammerschlag
June 2004

http://www.ilea.org/articles/CEF.html

http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlag.pdf (.pdf)

Advanced EVs gain substantially more useful work than FCVs with the same amount of electrical energy. Using calculations from remote and localized electrolysis scenarios reported above, 38-54% of original source energy emerges from a vehicle fuel cell to propel the vehicle. By comparison, advanced batteries operate at cycle efficiencies of 87% or better. The remainder of the electric energy brought to the battery is lost as heat during charging or through self-discharge when the vehicle is allowed to stand unused for long periods of time. Assuming losses of 8% of the original electricity between generation and delivery to the vehicle, 80% of original source energy emerges from the battery. Fuel cells and batteries feed functionally identical electric drive trains, so the 80% battery cycle efficiency and 38-54% fuel cell efficiency are directly comparable.

. . .

Though the drive trains of FCVs and EVs can be nearly identical, EVs will suffer an efficiency penalty during acceleration because the batteries are heavier than the hydrogen fuel tanks. Direct modeling of EV drive train efficiency shows that this penalty is probably much less than detractors of EVs like to postulate. For instance Delucchi & Lipman calculate that a 480-kilometer EV weighing 1,700 kg (of which 510 kg are due to the battery) specified to accelerate from 0 to 60 in 9.3 seconds, still handily achieves more than seven times the fuel-to-kilometers efficiency of a gasoline car with equivalent performance. Delucchi, Mark, and Timothy Lipman. "An Analysis of the Retail and Lifecycle Cost of Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles." Transportation Research Part D 6 (2001): 371-404.

. . .

The EV’s clear, current advantage over the FCV is that the EV can be brought to market immediately. Even today's limited-production EVs are already capable of meeting most daily driving needs. Solectria’s Force, having a curb weight of only 1,100 kilograms with nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries is specified with a range of 140-160 kilometers. The RAV4 EV with NiMH batteries is specified at 200 kilometers. Nissan’s Altra EV, using lithium ion batteries, claims 190 kilometers. Brooks compares a Ford Focus FCV with a concept EV based on an altered Toyota Prius, powered purely by Li-ion batteries. The Focus has 320-kilometers range and a curb weight of 1,600 kg, the Prius 220-320 kilometers with a curb weight of 1,300 kg. Refueling the Focus requires the equivalent of 860 MJ, the Prius 140 MJ. Adding batteries to the Prius to bring its weight to that of the Focus would raise the driving range to 640 kilometers.

. . .

EVs can offer twice the useful work from the same electrical energy as ReH2-powered FCVs. A fleet of 10,000 FCVs might consume between 250 and 360 TJ of electricity each year. The same fleet of battery electric cars would consume 180 TJ. Advanced battery technologies hold solid potential to substantially overcome range limitations that have held back EV acceptance. PHEVs offer an option that merges the best of EVs, including very high efficiency, with the unlimited ranges and rapid fueling time of HEVs.


Peaking of World Oil Production: Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management.
Hirsch, Bezdek, Wendling, February 2005

www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/The_Hirsch_Report_Proj_Cens.pdf (.pdf)

. . .

The Department of Energy is currently conducting a high profile program aimed at developing a “hydrogen economy.” DOE’s primary emphasis is on hydrogen for light duty vehicle application (automobiles and light duty trucks). Recently, the National Research Council (NRC) completed a study that included an evaluation of the technical, economic and societal challenges associated with the development of a hydrogen economy. (National Research Council. The Hydrogen Economy: Opportunities, Costs, Barriers and R & D Needs. National Academies Press. 2004.) That study is the basis for the following highlights.

A lynchpin of the current DOE hydrogen program is fuel cells. In order for fuel cells to compete with existing petroleum-based internal combustion engines, particularly for light duty vehicles, the NRC concluded that fuel cells must improve by 1) a factor of 10-20 in cost, 2) a factor of five in lifetime, and 3) roughly a factor of two in efficiency. The NRC did not believe that such improvements could be achieved by technology development alone; instead, new concepts (breakthroughs) will be required. In other words, today’s technologies do not appear practically viable. Because of the need for unpredictable inventions in fuel cells, as well as viable means for on-board hydrogen storage, the introduction of commercial hydrogen vehicles cannot be predicted.
. . .

In the 1990s electric automobiles were introduced to the market, spurred by a California clean vehicle requirement. The effort was a failure because existing batteries did not provide the vehicle range and performance that customers demanded. In the future, electricity storage may improve enough to win consumer acceptance of electric automobiles. In addition, extremely high gasoline prices may cause some consumers to find electric automobiles more acceptable, especially for around-town use. Such a shift in public preferences is unpredictable, so electric vehicles cannot now be projected as a significant offset to future gasoline use.