Hydrogen Power Conundrum

[jtbartlett]

Here's a conundrum that's been bothering me for a while now regarding hydrogen alternative energy sources. The free market system is based upon certain rules which govern pricing, i.e. supply and demand. The higher the supply, the less demand, translates into lower prices. Conversely limited supplies dictate a higher demand and price. (I am not an economist but that's the general idea right?) - Here's the hitch which does not work. Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. Mankind will NEVER run out of hydrogen...ever. We are currently going down a road by which we will be paying premium prices for the most common element in the universe. More than finite fossil fuels. I understand the costs are inherent in the production of USABLE hydrogen which make the user cost higher. There is a common sense disconnect in that particular equation. Perhaps my reasoning is based upon faulty premises. Or, as I believe, we are in for the biggest economic coup in history. I personally believe a combination of fuel sources is necessary to replace our dependence on fossil fuels however, I hope we are intelligent enough to understand an economy based on "air" is just that. Any thoughts on this topic are appreciated. I do not claim to be correct by any means, just trying to clarify a few thoughts on economics associated with hydrogen as a power source.

Joel Bartlett

[skravlinge]

Your view is realy something to think about. You know water is very important for survive, it is in most places not too expency, but on some places. A diamond is very expency, and you can live just fine witout it. The fact something is common like water, which has duoble the atoms as oxygen, is  about the most common  thing on earth. Still many have lack of it. The hydrogen is common, has low value, if it is not a free gas as H2. You probably not pay very much for the most common element, but to  use its energy you have to find it as a gas and thats is like a diamond. I think you can supply yourself with the energy without the hydrogen.

Nobody(mostly) can claim the hydrogen you will find(water) . but you can not burn it, and you may find a lot lightyears from here, but how will you use it, or get it.

[JW]

Very,very carefully extracts the cork off of a bottle of UNIBROUE 11.

 [You see] "I hope we are intelligent enough to understand an economy Based on "air" is just that." [Quite right- infact...] But... you, should refer to the fact, that cryo-gens need leekage, to be safely stored in de-wars containers. Sooo, if you park your H2(liquid) powered vehicle in an airport parking lot, whilest you take a 7day trip, when you return to your H2 powered vehicle, the tank will be empty. Bummer huh?. Infact it has been proven as a benchmark that most (if not all) cryogen infrostructures have 20% loss of vapor due to venting, under best useage demand loads, over all. Whats worst is that they say that excessive H2 losses will acumilate in the upper atmosphere and merge with oxygen forming so-called wisp clouds that accelerate global warming greenhouse effects faster than conventional models of CO2 or methane.

JW  

[Norm]

 I personally believe a combination of fuel sources is necessary to replace our dependence on fossil fuels

  I believe that the public  needs to be educated toward conserving our fuel sources.

   Why in the world does anyone need an electric can opener...for instance?? Just think of the fuel used to try and sap the public into thinking that they have to have a useless or similar item like that...for a can of tomatoes when you could have grown them in your garden or even in a wooden barrel at the corner of your house.

   Then there is that coffee maker that takes about 1200 watts for about 3 minutes to make about 8 cups of coffee...after the first cup the coffee warmer burns the rest and you have to make another pot of coffee...instead of putting it in the thermos. In the 'old' days they just put the coffee and water all together in a pot...stuck it on the stove that was fueled by coal...wood...corncobs.

   Clotheslines instead of electric dryers....

 the list goes on and on.....

           Why should we replace one fuel source with another?  if hydrogen was only half the price of fossil fuels people would learn to waste twice as much and then we'd be back to square one again.

          ( :>) Norm.

[Ungrounded Lightning Rod]

When you're buying hydrogen as an energy source you're really buying the energy needed to break the hydrogen out of lower-energy compounds and deliver it as H2, so you can burn it back to lower-energy compounds and get that energy.

The abundance of water and other low-energy hydrogen-containing compounds is totally immaterial.  The hydrogen there is not fuel.  It is ash.

(Indeed, hydrogen itself is not so much an energy SUPPLY as an energy TRANSPORT MECHANISM.  It's like the electrons in a utility company's power transmission wires.  There are electrons EVERYWHERE.  THESE electrons are special:  You can get large numbers of them at one voltage and return them at another without materially affecting the voltages - provided you pay your electric bill on time.)

You have to look at the economics of the energy supply, not the particles carrying it, to correctly model the situation.

[JW]

I often lash out against the proposed hydrogen economy, my reasons for this are simple, if we take a given quantity of H2, say one liter, this means so much energy run thru a 60% efficient fuel cell, but if we take this same quantity of H2(one liter) and converted it to whatever, then fused it into helium, thru fusion, in a fusion reactor, we'd get one million times the(heat)energy in btu's, than we could recover from one liter of H2 in a fuelcell in direct current returns. I think a better use of hydrogen(H2) per liter, if were going to have to use it, atleast in my humble opinion(is in the proposed fusion reactors). So I say lets fund that fusion reactor R&D with pride, beacause in reality its our only hope

JW

[jtbartlett]

Norm, I completely agree that the public needs to be educated toward conserving our fuel sources. However, the scale modernization in countries like China REQUIRE an alternative fuel source. We all know the United States consumes 40% of the Worlds natural resources. There's only so much oil in the ground. Period. The amount of energy required in China to fulfill it's development plans will easily eclipse that of the west. I (unfortunately) do not hold faith in the collective intelligence of mankind. I don't believe we have evolved sufficiently to control our own growth and consumption patterns. What WE, as a whole have to do is transition to a renewable fuel source.

[DanB]

Ive got to agree JW....

I really believe that a little ways down the road fusion will be a big part of the answer.

Till then - if we can figure out a way to get enough energy from a generator powered by hydrogen so that it can create a little more hydrogen than it needs to keep running - super.  I'm doubtful thats possible... and with that in mind hydrogen seems like a pretty inefficient way to go.

[TomW]

Norm;

A couple years ago I got an 8 cup coffee maker that makes it straight into a thermal carafe. Not sure how many watts while running but as soon as the tank is dry after brewing it shuts off. Its good and hot till its gone almost always. Even 8 hours later the last cup tastes fine but is not hot so a 20 second pass in the microwave gets it up there. I would rather microwave it 8 hours later than drink burnt coffee.

T

[drdongle]

JT Google "Abiotic oil" it may in fact be limitless.

Carpe Vigor

Dr.D

[p0lizei]

There have been quite a few posts recently on the topic of the "hydrogen economy," and so far all I have seen are regurgitations of the same old tired F.U.D.  

People have pointed out that hydrogen is not a fuel, it is an engery carrier, since energy must be used to "produce" it.  Ok, yes, I agree, you do have to "produce" the hydrogen so technically it is an energy carrier, and not a fuel.  But, so is gasoline!  Where are these magical mystery gasoline pumps that are sucking gasoline straight up out of the ground?  And where are these lakes of pure diesel fuel, ready for the "energy companies" to come along and ship it out by the barrel full?  

The fact is that if you want to get technical about it and badmouth hydrogen as an energy carrier, you had better be just as quick to point out that short of wood and maybe coal, everything that we use on a large scale for our energy needs is an "enery carrier" rather than straight fuel.  We pump oil out of the ground to make gasoline and diesel and kerosene and other "fuels".  That takes a good amount of energy to do so!  Where is this energy coming from, and is it being accounted for when people say, "In order to 'produce' hydrogen we have to use xAmount of energy per unit of hydrogen, so I hereby declare in the name of the Queen of Spainland that hydrogen is inefficient?"  I have yet to see a single statistic that honestly compares hydrogen to fossil fuels, and that's just with getting the damn stuff [fossil fuels] out of the ground.  

I've been putting the word "produce" in quotes when referring to hydrogen because it's misleading and very poor word choice.  When you use solar or wind power to "produce" hydrogen from water, you're not actually producing the stuff, you're refining it from water.  Here's a newsflash: gas and every other petroleum based "fuel" has to be refined, too!  And guess what, THAT takes energy!  And not only does it take energy, it also produces some very harmful byproducts that have to be properly contained and disposed of in order to have minimal impact on the environment.  

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=metal+hydride+storage

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=fullerene+hydride

There is some reading material.  So far, all I've been reading on here are misguided comments and jabs at the dangers and inefficiencies of hydrogen storage as either its native gasseous form or as a liquid.  I agree that driving around with a highly compressed fuel is more than a little nervewracking, but let's stop with the Wile E Coyote approach* and actually do some problem solving.  Metal and carbon hydride storage is probably the most feasible and socially acceptable solution (at the moment) that we have for hydrogen storage and transportation.  And speaking of safety, let's stop right here with the, "Hydrogen is dangerous!  Did you ever see what happened to the Hindenburg??  That's proof enough for me!" bull.  The Hindenburg went up in flames because the skin they used was basically coated in a thermite paint.  The people who were burnt to death (and these victims paled in comparison to the number of victims who died by jumping or falling from that height) were burned by a combination of the airship's outter skin and the fuel oil that the ship was carrying.  Hydrogen played little if any role in the incident, end of story.

Another trend I've noticed in these hydrogen "debunk" sessions is the lack of alternative solutions.  Just what do you propose to use in lieu of hydrogen?  Alcohol?  Hey, that's fine by me, it does pollute though, so don't try and tout it as a clean fuel.  You also need an awful lot of space and resources to grow the plants required, and then you still need to harvest said plants, and process that into useable alcohol.

A few other problems I have seen with several peoples' arguments have been the source of the hydrogen.  "Hydrogen isn't clean, because it REQUIRES production from petroleum and natural gas!  It's just another trick by the oil companies to make them rich!"  No.  Hydrogen does not HAVE to come from petroleum, or through steam reformation of natural gas.  What is wrong with having a field of solar generators (be they solar panels or parabolic mirrors) generating electricity and electrolyzing water?  The infrastructure isn't in place to do it?  Then put it into place!  There isn't enough information about it?  THEN RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENT!  How do you think we went from burning wood for fuel to pumping gas into an 8 cylinder SUV?

I'm not trying to come off as being confrontational, but for crying out loud, research this stuff just a little better and keep in mind who your sources are.  If a BP Oil rep tells you that hydrogen just isn't feasible and that it's really Hype!rogen, you may want to take that information with a few salt shakers at hand.

* Ever notice on Road Runner cartoons how the coyote will try one plan, and some unrelated incident will cause that plan to fail, and so said plan is scrapped and never tried again?

[rotornuts]

Try this link, it's an interesting idea!

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1590/is_13_56/ai_61934339

In due time answers will present themselves. Thankfully there are those who dare to find solutions.

If you travel to the northeast of Edmonton Alberta and take a looksee at the refineries there you'll quickly realize by the shear size of the power transmission lines and substations that petroleum requires MASSIVE amounts of power to refine. Take all the electricity generated by all the people who frequent this board and I doubt we would light the parking lots.

[p0lizei]

Yes, thankfully there are those who are willing to go beyond, "Well, that didn't work, looks like hydrogen as a whole is a bust."

I can't remember where I got the link from, it may have been osnews.com or smh.com.au, but I remember reading an article about either an algae or bacteria or plant or SOMEthing that actually produced enough electricity as one of its life processes that researchers were considering using it as a type of battery.

[electrondady1]

don't get distracted. the sun warms the air. the wind turns your genie . electrolyse frees the hydrogen . now you have fuel, now you are free.

[tecker]

 The only way to settle this dispute is to see if a small scale unit is possible .

I know the cons to hydrogen production not to exclude the hazards but It keeps commin up this leeds me to believe there's somthing we are missing in the process . I 'm going to tackle a browns gas setup and see if the numbers work out .

[windstuffnow]

  I think norm hits the problem right on the head and burried the nail.   Conservation !  That is the core problem.   When you set up an RE system isn't that the first thing you look at?  We analyze our needs and base a system that will fill those needs.  Secondly we look at our pocket book and realize the system will have to be huge.  Can we cut back and still enjoy the modern living?  Of course we can, we just cut the waste.  Waste being the key word here.  Do we need a 6000 lb 400 hp hummer to go to the store for a loaf of bread? or drop the kids off at school?  Could we possibly do the same task in a more efficient less wasteful way?  We are bombarded by the media telling us we have to own big wasteful cars, we HAVE to have all the luxurys energy can offer.  They build electronics with built in energy wasters sucking electric 24 hours a day whether you use the product or not.   Our society needs to step back and build from the ground up not the top down.

   It's easy for me to cut the waste, I was brought up in a poor environment.  Nothing was wasted, nothing was thrown away.  If it could no longer be used for what it was then it would be used for what it could be.  If you didn't have it then you build it with what you have or can get for free or very little cost.  

   If, as a start, all the autos manufactured in the comming years achieved a minimum of 30mpg our oil dependency would be cut in half or more.  If everyone looked at their personal electric use and cut all the wasteful use it could be cut in half again or more without giving up the luxury of 99% of things we like.  If our society was turned around from the wasteful one to a conservative one we would no longer feel the need to rush into some exotic form of energy production just so we could keep wasting it as we please.

   So in ending, start at the "CORE" of the problem then work your way up.

"Waste not want not"

Windstuff Ed

[p0lizei]

Brown's gas is not some magical mystery gas.  It's atomic hydrogen.  Do a Google search for "atomic gas production" and you will find a site with information about how the Germans were using it for welding.  The basic premise is that you shoot hydrogen through a very high temperature arc, the hydrogen molecule is split into atomic hydrogen, which then very quickly recombines into a hydrogen molecule, releasing intense heat in the process.  There is no overunity involved, and the machine is not some great big secret.  In fact, the setup that I have seen on most sites is actually very inefficient and potentially dangerous.

The only way to settle the dispute is to just use hydrogen if you think it's a good idea (make sure that safety is a priority, of course).  I don't care if nobody uses hydrogen at all, but at the very least, be informed when you're "talking smack" about it.

[tecker]

  When used as an open flame it has some special properties such as being able to fuse

brick  the torch is a first class tool for gas brazing . The cells  are simple to build and build pressure in the process.

[tecker]

The idea with a browns gas system is to make what you need and control cell voltage with the device using  recombination of the mixed gas.

[deerslayer660]

   I just have one thing to say and a lot of you may not like this comment but here gos if hydrogen is found to be a usefull fule for any kind of application the goverment of the usa will first make sure that you do not make your own home brew

hydrogen and you buy it from some big corp. that made a big contrabutaion to one political party or another.  if you make your own than you will be breaking a law and

will most likely go to jail. as with all the problems it all falls back to are goverment i personally think we have to stop all goverment partys and elect only volinters to office make it against the law for these volinters to except any money

or be influenced by any corporations if they do they go to jail no exceptions this is in my opinion the only way common sence will once again rule are country .george

[electrondady1]

the first time i made hydrogen i was 11 years old  used my buddy's train set transformer. just wanted to make some balloons that could float.didn't know you had to keep the oxygen seperate. made the cell from a pop bottle, a cork and some plastic straws. this rig didn't want to inflate the balloon very much . i was in doubt as to the sucess of the experiment. reread the science book and it mentioned that hyrogen was flamable. put a match to the cell and blew that rig all over my dad's shop. ive been in love with hydrogen ever since.

[p0lizei]

You can fuse brick with an arc furnace if you want to, it isn't really a special property.  There is no such thing as "Brown's Gas," this Brown individual did not invent atomic hydrogen.  

I also understand that the resulting water from a "Brown's Gas system" has the ability to take on whatever property of that which it comes into contact with.  But then, they don't go into too much detail about that because it's supposedly a politically hot subject and they don't want to attract the attention of the gubment.  I can think of another explanation, one that has a lot more to do with "it is a load of crap" than potential government conspiracies.

I won't even go into the part where these things supposedly sell for $1000 for a "small" unit.  

[p0lizei]

pff, fine, I'll make my hydrogen in a backyard still, or better yet, I'll Move To Australia.  Stupid USA, and their darn conspiracies and black helicopters and things.  grr.

[p0lizei]

What do you mean by, "converted it to whatever?"  Are you suggesting that it should be converted to deuterium or tritium for use in a fusion cell?

Google "Farnsworth fusor."  The thing is interesting as, mates.

[tecker]

   I see you have little burr under your blanket so I 'll let you continue with your

  dead thread .  I'll just finish with saying I bought a plan from eagle research and the hydrogen oxygen mix when  set to flame does have unique properties  .I must admit I haven't gotten far with construction of a cell but I recently made a small device for test with 1/4 " stainless screws in  pvc set very close and the gas collects fast enough to fill a small tank at 30 lbs  .I struck up a flame and was able to  flame weld steel and the weld was very smooth and the steel came up to temp much faster than ox acct l .

[p0lizei]

What are these unique properties that you keep mentioning?

[tecker]

  First of all a flame is imploding  you can  evacuate a cylender in a imposion cycle . users can cut thick steel and weld steel to brick . Also can  sublimate tungsten and weld any two pieces of any metal with out flux.

[rotornuts]

Beyond speculation this discussion is almost moot.

 We will get what those with bigger wallets give us and it will fall in line with what we currently spend on energy plus fear and some "I know it cost more but it will save the planet". This leaves people who could care less to be caught playing that game seeking there own home brew solutions. I'm sorry I'd like to give hydrogen a chance and I think it will have it's day if only for a while but it's beyond me to do it myself.

WIND/ELECTRICITY and all things that will run on it, that's MY future.

I hope???

[p0lizei]

The flame implodes initially, but it is not a continuous effect.  You cannot evacuate a cylinder using this "property," this has been proven many times through experimentation.

The rest of what you mentioned are all possible with an arc furnace, and the setup is infinitely safer and less complicated than a "Brown's Gas" setup.

And as far as the setup itself being some great thing, try this.  Take a two litre bottle, tap some holes and pop in some electrodes, dump in some water and you've got a handy little electrolysis device.  Rig this up in such a way that the oxygen is free to escape while the hydrogen is forced through a small hose.  Pass said hydrogen through a high temperature arc and there you are, an atomic hydrogen torch, and I guarantee that you'll be producing more atomic hydrogen than you would be with some "Brown's Gas" b.s.

[p0lizei]

That's cool, but what are you going to do when the government cracks down on black market battery use, rig a sail up to your pickup truck and drive it off of wind power?  

Chevy- Like a Yacht(tm)

The government is just as likely to regulate battery use as they are to regulate hydrogen-- this fear that hydrogen will be "taken away" from the common man when it is found to be useful is unfounded and ridiculous.

[tecker]

  Push away from the keyboard and build you;ll be fine . Or maybe you could just not and say you did.

[bob g]

well here is my two cents worth...

this is from my year in chemistry ,,, well a long time ago.

but i think i can say with certainty that there is no such thing as a hydrogen molecule.

hydrogen is an element and as such is comprised of a single atom, i guess this is the "atomic" hydrogen that was referenced.

i think there is so much hype and bullsh*t in reguards to browns gas generation, and i wouldn't spend much on a generator for it.

while you might melt a brick to steel or visa versa no fusion will take place, so the best that one could hope for is a poorly soldered joint, but then again why would one want to in the first place.

what you have when you weld with hydrogen is a clean weld, with the absence of carbon.

as for conspiracy and government control it comes down to one thing and that is one of taxation, period. Same as for alcohol production, you can make your own but are limited by the feds to so many gallons per year for personal consumption.

i agree the immediate key to success is from conservation of what we have, but as long as we live in a capitalistic and democratic society, we will be free to splurge it as fast or conserve it at will.

as far as i can tell hydrogen won't be economically viable until oil supplies dwindle further, or the market force's (demand) increases.

perhaps when we are paying 5 or 6 bucks a gallon for gasoline, will hydrogen become a factor in our lives.

bob g

[bob g]

one more note:

not sure it makes sence to generate hydrogen from common sources

   a. line power, very expensive

   b. alternate energy, ie. wind cheaper, but

when you consider the arguement of reduceing the steps in conversion with the inherent losses, going from wind, thru rectifiers, transmission, storage, electrolysis, harvesting, compressing, and storage of the hydrogen, then what are you going to do with it?  burn it in an internal combustion engine with efficiencies averageing 30- 35%.

time you figure in all the losses, expenses, hazards, etc. you likely will be around an overall efficiency of an external combustion engineie. (steam engine)

seems a lot easier to burn whatever you choose in a boiler to produce steam, the technology is 150 years old, well proven and much simpler. As far as safety it is probably a wash. Also it might be worth noting that most anything could be used as a fuel, paper, scraps, leaves, wood, trash etc.

i don't see hydrogen as making a bit of sence at this time or likely in the forseeable future.

bob g