Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass production?

[AsianDream]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

Other than having no distribution system, which I think already has an easy solution, what could possibly prevent automakers from fully embracing hydrogen?

As far as the distribution system is concerned, I think big oil needs to start spending their absurd profits of the past few years and spend the money to begin integrating hydrogen fuel into their business models. Further, government should threaten to take away their tax breaks if they don't, while giving low interest loans or grants to gas station owners for installing hydrogen fueling stations at their gas stations.

As far as transporting the fuel to the stations, how less safe is it than transporting gasoline? Other than the size of the crater each of them would leave should an accident occur, I find no valid reason to say that its not safe to transport hydrogen fuel as we do gasoline. Safety precautions can be and already are made.

Discuss. On topic, preferably, and without a flame war or sarcasm.

Hydrogen is not a fuel - it is just a method of transporting energy generated somewhere else.

It's drawbacks are that to store a usable amount this must either be at immense pressure (about 400 times atmospheric) or at incredibly cold temperatures (about minus 250 C - (-420F)).

Handling a substance like this is not impossible (NASA technicians manage this fine at every space launch - though still a high risk procedure) but is something that might not be easy to do every time you filled up your tank.

 

[metta]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

I think that Honda is releasing one this summer




http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/


http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/


http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080113Next-Generation-Green-Cars/

DETROIT, U.S.A., January 13, 2008–The Honda CR-Z, a lightweight sports hybrid concept vehicle, and the FCX Clarity, a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle set to begin limited retail marketing in summer 2008, are bringing some of the most advanced environmental technologies from Honda to the 2008 North American International Auto Show.

CR-Z
Making its North American debut, the CR-Z is a next-generation lightweight sports car concept equipped with Honda's original gas-electric hybrid system that achieves both clean performance and a high level of torque. The CR-Z stands for "Compact Renaissance Zero" - an expression intended to capture the idea of a renaissance in the design of compact cars that begins anew from fundamentals. The design research model of a lightweight hybrid sports car features advanced technologies that deliver elevated driving performance while reducing the vehicle's environmental footprint.




CR-Z

It looks like we can lease one for around $600/month and it includes maintenance for 3 years.
http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/frequently-asked-questions/


More Photos:
http://world.honda.com/news/2008/4080113Next-Generation-Green-Cars/photo/index.html#1

 

[AsianDream]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

I think that Honda is releasing one this summer

Too Bad you won't be able to fill it up anywhere

 

[metta]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

Too Bad you won't be able to fill it up anywhere

Actually, I live in California...look again:
http://www.cafcp.org/fuel-vehl_map.html

Yeah Blue State!



http://www.fuelcells.org/

 

[star-warrior]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

Due to the very small size of hydrogen atoms and molecules, you can actually pump them into metals. Quite a bit of research both theoretical and experimental has gone into this, but the rather explosive nature of the stuff on contact and ignition with oxygen makes it rather dangerous.

We're not all smart, imagine the horror of some dumb fuck with hydrogen at his disposal at a garage forecourt. And getting it legally and openly is just tempting the terrorists from all walks of life.

 

[thermodynamics]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

First, the Hindenburg did not explode from the hydrogen it was carrying--the builders painted it with what was basically rocket fuel.

Second, if you have a source of hydrogen, one must think about the second law of thermodynamics [see the deltaS equation at left]. Fuel cells can be at most about 40% efficient. That's not much better than today's IC engines at their best. You're actually better off thermodynamically burning the hydrogen in an IC engine than putting it in a fuel cell. Water is the only emission from either.

As my IC Engines professor said: "Hydrogen...the fuel of the future and it always will be."

If I had my way...we'd keep along the corn-based ethanol with huge amounts of $$ into cellulosic ethanol research. Corn-based ethanol is a bad solution for the long term, but in the short term, it has served us very well for the purposes of getting the technology (our engines & cars) ready to burn ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is probably 7-10 years down the road for mass production. By then, the vast majority of cars in the US will be Flexfuel.

The changeover to Flexfuel involves more than you might think. The fuel injectors must be considerably larger because more fuel has to be injected to maintain the stoichiometric mixture. Knock sensors must be in the loop to detect destructive knock. And probably most importantly, there can be NO rubber hose in the fuel system--alcohols degrade rubber. All hoses must be teflon/stainless steel or some other replacement "rubber" compound like Viton, etc.

 

[theblackajah]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

First, the Hindenburg did not explode from the hydrogen it was carrying--the builders painted it with what was basically rocket fuel.

Second, if you have a source of hydrogen, one must think about the second law of thermodynamics [see the deltaS equation at left]. Fuel cells can be at most about 40% efficient. That's not much better than today's IC engines at their best. You're actually better off thermodynamically burning the hydrogen in an IC engine than putting it in a fuel cell. Water is the only emission from either.

As my IC Engines professor said: "Hydrogen...the fuel of the future and it always will be."

If I had my way...we'd keep along the corn-based ethanol with huge amounts of $$ into cellulosic ethanol research. Corn-based ethanol is a bad solution for the long term, but in the short term, it has served us very well for the purposes of getting the technology (our engines & cars) ready to burn ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is probably 7-10 years down the road for mass production. By then, the vast majority of cars in the US will be Flexfuel.

The changeover to Flexfuel involves more than you might think. The fuel injectors must be considerably larger because more fuel has to be injected to maintain the stoichiometric mixture. Knock sensors must be in the loop to detect destructive knock. And probably most importantly, there can be NO rubber hose in the fuel system--alcohols degrade rubber. All hoses must be teflon/stainless steel or some other replacement "rubber" compound like Viton, etc.

Where do you propose we source the cellulose? Growing it is inefficient.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

Most "alternative" energy sources are not really viable. They are simply politically driven. Any engineer or scientist can see the problems with hydrogen, solar, wind, ethanol etc.

Look into these ideas and you will see why:

1) total energy balance (amount of energy used to obtain and process the fuel vs. amount it generates).

2) energy density (amount of energy per unit mass, unit volume, or unit area for things like coal, natural gas, and solar energy).

3) true source of the fuel (where does the hydrogen really come from--surprise! it comes from fossil fuels.

4) Energy cost over total product life (applies to the power plants--how much energy does it take to build, run, and decommission a plant vs the energy it produces in its useful life).

These four concepts will show you why hydrogen fuel cells are a dead stick, crop-based ethanol is a dangerous joke (though waste cellulose ethanol is good), and why wind and solar are cute, but shouldn't be taken seriously for the future). The real facts are more bleak than world leaders really want to tell the public.

There are two major crisis points tied to energy: food/water, and housing/shelter. Without high-energy density fuels that are easily transported and easily used, we cannot sustain our food and water production for 6 billion people, nor can we shelter them in extremely cold regions.

Think about coal, oil and gas. How many materials are energy-rich, easy to transport, and easy to use in a variety of temperatures and environments? Not many. Most new fuels are either energy-poor, difficult to use or difficult to store and transport.

The problems are more complex than the average person realizes. They are not impossible to solve, but the vast majority of people in the industrialized world will suffer great scarcity before the problems are solved in any practical sense.

Actually the biggest problem right now is political: everybody wants cleaner energy, but no one wants the production facilities. Case close to home: people in Oregon think that generating electricity from wave power -- both practical and profitable -- would be wonderful, because it doesn't put anything into the atmosphere. But, gee, no one wants any wave-generators off their piece of coast.... Again close to home, the local news had a piece a few weeks ago about wind power: there are companies here sitting on the components for complete wind turbine towers, but people who think they're ugly have managed to stall their installation.
It's even true of solar -- a group of citizens near our state's capital has decided that solar panels on building roofs aren't "aesthetic", and is pledged to block their installation!
What's really sad about that is that even with today's solar cells, if we just covered the existing roofing in the U.S. with them, we could eliminate the need for imported oil.

BTW -- hydrogen doesn't have to come from fossil fuels; there's a place in Oregon making it by electrolysis using solar power, and selling the oxygen to medical suppliers. If you consider the efficiency of that, though, it's a pretty lame process. And some brain talking on one of the educational channels showed a process where you could get hydrogen straight from growing plants (using a process I don't claim to follow).

Where do you propose we source the cellulose? Growing it is inefficient.

Legalize hemp & marijuana. Hemp would not only replace plastics in thousands of products, but can be used as base stock for producing methane. Grow it for marijuana, and you get a product people can enjoy along with one to generate fuel.

Now, I wonder if that guy who got the plants to spit out hydrogen could do it with cannabis?

 

[star-warrior]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

China and other countries grows sugar cane for ethanol production.

Everyone complains diesel is polluting, but with the amount of fast food joints that use cooking oil day this may still be one way of having a supply of fuel. The used oil can be converted to usable diesel type fuel fairly easily, and it is better than dumping or incinerating the waste cooking oil.

 

[metta]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

China and other countries grows sugar cane for ethanol production.

Everyone complains diesel is polluting, but with the amount of fast food joints that use cooking oil day this may still be one way of having a supply of fuel. The used oil can be converted to usable diesel type fuel fairly easily, and it is better than dumping or incinerating the waste cooking oil.

The bulk of this nitrate comes from fertilizer running off agricultural fields. Scientists warn that a boom in crops such as corn for biofuel will only make matters worse. Last year, U.S. farmers planted more than 90 million acres (35 million hectares) of corn for the first time since the 1940s as a result of growing demand for that crop for both fuel and food.

Based on this trend, geographer Simon Donner of the University of British Columbia and atmospheric scientist Christopher Kucharik of the University of Wisconsin–Madison predict that nitrogen pollution from the Mississippi River Basin—the nation's largest watershed—will increase as much as 34 percent by 2022 if corn kernels continue to be the source of a growing proportion of ethanol fuel that U.S. energy legislation mandates.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=fertilizer-runoff-overwhelms-streams


Rush To Produce Corn-based Ethanol Will Worsen 'Dead Zone' In Gulf Of Mexico, Study Says



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310181604.htm

We should seriously look into growing hemp.
http://www.hemp4fuel.com/

(Well, I'm off to the Natural Products Expo in Anaheim. )

 

[thermodynamics]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

Where do you propose we source the cellulose? Growing it is inefficient.

Grass. Much of the corn belt was originally a prairie--we'd be returning it to what it was.

Diesels dirty? Not the new ones! The 2007 (and newer) diesels are incredibly clean (equal to spark-ignition) thanks to after-treatment that is basically a soot filter catalyst. In 2007, new diesel engines had to comply with a new set of EPA regulations. They are very very clean. The Center for Diesel Research (Nat'l Sci Foundation) is here at the University of Minnesota, and they've been working on this for quite a while. The 2010 regulations are even stricter, to the point that spark-ignition engines have to mind their soot emissions--they've never had to do this. Stricter NOx emissions on diesels will also go into effect in 2010.

 

[AsianDream]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

First, the Hindenburg did not explode from the hydrogen it was carrying--the builders painted it with what was basically rocket fuel.

Second, if you have a source of hydrogen, one must think about the second law of thermodynamics [see the deltaS equation at left]. Fuel cells can be at most about 40% efficient. That's not much better than today's IC engines at their best. You're actually better off thermodynamically burning the hydrogen in an IC engine than putting it in a fuel cell. Water is the only emission from either.

As my IC Engines professor said: "Hydrogen...the fuel of the future and it always will be."

If I had my way...we'd keep along the corn-based ethanol with huge amounts of $$ into cellulosic ethanol research. Corn-based ethanol is a bad solution for the long term, but in the short term, it has served us very well for the purposes of getting the technology (our engines & cars) ready to burn ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol is probably 7-10 years down the road for mass production. By then, the vast majority of cars in the US will be Flexfuel.

The changeover to Flexfuel involves more than you might think. The fuel injectors must be considerably larger because more fuel has to be injected to maintain the stoichiometric mixture. Knock sensors must be in the loop to detect destructive knock. And probably most importantly, there can be NO rubber hose in the fuel system--alcohols degrade rubber. All hoses must be teflon/stainless steel or some other replacement "rubber" compound like Viton, etc.

I agree with most of things you say - I also think Hydrogen has a role as an energy transmission method - but with many problems still to be solved.

The evidence is mounting that bio-fuels are not the answer to CO2 problems and especially that "temperate climate" crops such as corn are highly inappropriate.

The CO2 emissions from clearing land to grow "Bio-fuels" have around a 300 year payback period - in other words they take 300 years before the extra CO2 released by clearing the land is compensated for by the amount of CO2 saved by using this for "Bio-fuel".

In comparison with tropical crops such as sugar cane - using temperate climate corps such as corn is far less efficient.

Its been quoted many times and unfortunately is true that the amount of food crops needed to fill an SUV fuel tank is enough to feed a person for a year. This is especially an issue with crops like corn which have a high nutrient value for human beings when compared to tropical crops which have a high energy content like sugar cane.

It would be easy to be cynical about the political influence of USA midwest corn growers. I think they should be properly rewarded for their work - but the main value of the crop they produce is in feeding people and this should not be diverted to unsustainable and inefficient patterns of energy consumption.

 

[theblackajah]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

Grass. Much of the corn belt was originally a prairie--we'd be returning it to what it was.

Thing is, it would still be debatable whether this is the key to energy independence. As with most other biofuels sourced from plant matter, a complete Life Cycle Assessment shows that it's HIGHLY inefficient, and only serves to worsen emissions. Sure, it's renewable in the sense that we can keep growing it - but it exasperates other problems such as climate issues and food security.

There's another alternative to "biofuels" though: Coal. Research is being done now at creating bioreactors to convert coal into fuel.

Seems promising!

Either way, I think that plants are simply not the answer when it comes to biologically-sourced fuels. Bacteria are the better, more efficient option.

 

[AsianDream]

Re: Hydrogen fuel: true obstacles to mass producti

Thing is, it would still be debatable whether this is the key to energy independence. As with most other biofuels sourced from plant matter, a complete Life Cycle Assessment shows that it's HIGHLY inefficient, and only serves to worsen emissions. Sure, it's renewable in the sense that we can keep growing it - but it exasperates other problems such as climate issues and food security.

There's another alternative to "biofuels" though: Coal. Research is being done now at creating bioreactors to convert coal into fuel.

Seems promising!

Either way, I think that plants are simply not the answer when it comes to biologically-sourced fuels. Bacteria are the better, more efficient option.

Leaving aside the issue that many human beings don't have enough to eat - the USA simply does not have enough land area to turn food crops into the fuel it uses now.

There is a lot of coal in the ground - at least a few hundred years worth - while the consensus is that world "peak oil" production is either very near or already past.

The problem is that coal produces more than twice the CO2 for the energy provided than hydrocarbons (like oil) so the CO2 problem will only get far worse by switching to coal.

A Coal based energy economy would definitely work for a while and is probably what we're actually headed for (with China completing one new coal fired power station a week).

On the assumption that the worlds climate scientists aren't involved in a "Commie Plot" to de-stabilise industrial society (eg: they're telling it like it is) - Then pumping out the carbon from all the worlds known coal reserves into the atmosphere would have catastrophic consequences - on a similar scale to prevoius "extinction events" in the worlds history