Danish researchers develop hydrogen tablets

Shbaz, you need to chill dude!

Do you not think that if either of the solutions was the right one we'd be doing more of it by now? Or do you buy into the "the oil companies are stopping us" consp? LOL

Shbaz..you are obviously a major fan of electricity, you claim that others are being closed minded when you yourself are doing the same!
The whole idea of hybrid or alternative energy vehicles is reduction in pollution and cost. It's not going to be possible to wire the type of powers you are talking about into a domestic home safely or efficiently. Imagine the massive increase in networks needed....it would take decades to supply that type of infrastructure. I live in the UK and we have a swimming pool that is electrically heated by a 10KW heater...it runs overnight using cheap electricity and costs a bloody fortune, we've had to have our meter replaced as the bearings wore out!!! The type of money we'd be talking about to charge a vehicle would make this totally out of the question. OK so lets talk electricity stations. Lets imagine you take a enormous capacitor the size of a petrol station and charge it using power from the local grid. The energy demands would be massive, as you say supply would be encouraged to meet demand. So....Powergen start builing new, fossil fuel burning powerstations!...hhmm kinda defeats the object...and where would they go?
As for hydrogen, Shbaz is right again! But the fact is that the energy being used is not purely electrical, we have help from the chemical world! This means we can easily power a vehicle using ammonia that is already produced in massive quantities using incredibly efficient manufacturing plants. Your tank would be full of salt, you fill up with ammonia, there is no 'shovelling of tablets' There is no waiting 7 hours to recharge, there is no deadly levels of power passing into your vehicle or over your head. There is not massive increase in fossil fuel burning powerstations, there is no millions of tonnes of lithium getting dumped from old or damaged batteries, lithium batteries also contain manganese dioxide or sulfur dioxide or thionyl-chloride, all not very nice!

I'm sorry shbaz but fuel cells have to be the way forward...yes they may be expensive now, but with massive scale production that will soon change. Electricity is not going to get any cheaper just because demand increases...demand is already massive, powerstations ultra efficient yet still we see power companies losing money! Unless that is....someone manages to sort out fusion or zero point!!! Then sir, electricity is the only winner!

cheers

Rob

Originally posted by robbie414
The whole idea of hybrid or alternative energy vehicles is reduction in pollution and cost. It's not going to be possible to wire the type of powers you are talking about into a domestic home safely or efficiently.

As I've repeatedly said, over and over, I don't give a flip about home charging. People don't do it now, they won't do it with a hydrogen economy, and they won't need to do it with electricity. Baseless argument.

Yes pollution and cost is key. Hydrogen doesn't solve either of those problems. It pollutes from every major source we have for it now except for electrolysis (only if electricity comes from wind/hydro/solar power) - and electrolysis is extremely wasteful - far moreso than charging batteries which have an equal cost/benefit ratio.

Originally posted by robbie414Lets imagine you take a enormous capacitor the size of a petrol station and charge it using power from the local grid. The energy demands would be massive, as you say supply would be encouraged to meet demand. So....Powergen start builing new, fossil fuel burning powerstations!...hhmm kinda defeats the object...and where would they go?

Yeah, which is also a problem with hydrogen. Where does the hydrogen come from if not from fossil fuel powered electricity plants? Did you read the last page, you don't seem to realize I've gone over everything you're bringing up already?

Originally posted by robbie414As for hydrogen, Shbaz is right again! But the fact is that the energy being used is not purely electrical, we have help from the chemical world! This means we can easily power a vehicle using ammonia that is already produced in massive quantities using incredibly efficient manufacturing plants. Your tank would be full of salt, you fill up with ammonia, there is no 'shovelling of tablets' There is no waiting 7 hours to recharge, there is no deadly levels of power passing into your vehicle or over your head. There is not massive increase in fossil fuel burning powerstations, there is no millions of tonnes of lithium getting dumped from old or damaged batteries, lithium batteries also contain manganese dioxide or sulfur dioxide or thionyl-chloride, all not very nice!

Oil is not nice, but it's recycled. People aren't going to run to Wal-Mart for a new li-ion battery and chuck the other one in the garbage.

Do you know what the waste products of the ammonia/salt reaction are? Do you realize the environmental effects of ammonia and that it emits poisonous fumes, which is why it isn't used in home air-conditioning appliances anymore? I'd hazard a guess that you don't.. I'd also hazard a guess that you have little clue of whether there is enough ammonia to go around for a world supply, what the waste products of the ammonia production would be, what the energy cost of that production would be, the extractable energy density of the fuels, and so on... it's all extremely important before you go talking about how it's "the big answer."

Originally posted by robbie414I'm sorry shbaz but fuel cells have to be the way forward...yes they may be expensive now, but with massive scale production that will soon change. Electricity is not going to get any cheaper just because demand increases...demand is already massive, powerstations ultra efficient yet still we see power companies losing money! Unless that is....someone manages to sort out fusion or zero point!!! Then sir, electricity is the only winner!

Once again, except for your ammonia argument (which as I've already pointed out, is of dubious practicality) electricity is the sole source of clean mass produced hydrogen at this time.

I don't think fuel cells or batteries are the way forward, I think cleaner burning hydrocarbon chain fuels are now and will be for a very long time the ideal fuel. My point is that if you look at hydrogen it isn't some kind of miracle energy source, it's transferred from other mediums, and if you just use the energy you've got in the first place instead of wasting much of it with a middleman you're better off. Here, you don't like reading, so I'll give a simple illustration.

Hydrogen motive economy:
electricity + water -> hydrogen (~50% loss) -> electricity (~15% loss) -> motive power (5-20% loss)

Electric motive economy:
electricity -> battery (~20% loss) -> electricity (~5% loss) -> motive power (5-20% loss)

I'm not some retard just spouting out BS on the internet, I'm an electrical engineering student in my last years of college and I know what I'm talking about. Do you?

Go to wikipedia. Search for "thermal depolymerization." Go to google. Search for "biodiesel from algae." Search for "purdue genetically modified yeast ethanol." We're not lacking in sources for fuel once oil disappears.

So far as pollution is concerned, engines are getting cleaner and cleaner all the time. After oil disappears and we're reliant on processed natural sources the cost will be about what it is now or more and people will finally be forced out of SUVs and into hybrids.

I personally want to see myself as part of the solution instead of part of the masses waiting for a solution so I'm getting an engineering degree and I spend all of my free time reading, learning and thinking every day.

I don't want to see the world's greatest intellectual resources wasted on dead ends because people don't realize the impracticality of the crap they're supporting - and so everywhere I go, when I see people blathering on about hydrogen and how it's the great solution when it is so clearly not, I tell them and they get angry and defensive until they have no defense left and the thread drops to the second page, only for someone else to bring it up again totally ignoring everything I've already said and I have to type out another long winded blast to the face of the hydrogen economy that doesn't, can't and won't work better than other solutions already out there.

Shbaz the main problem with batteries is the disposal end of the equation. While you're correct that the ammonia-hydrogen idea will produce deadly byproducts, so do battereis, even if they're recycled. Batteries are also more expensive to replace.

I have read in Mechanical Engineering that the catalysts that are normally expensive platinum may be able to be replaced with nano-particles of nickel, and with the greater surface area will work as well as more epxensive catalysts.

shbaz not sure if you're aware of this but they've cut the amount of heat required to electrolyze H2 from H2O by 50 %

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Have you taking this into considering as I think it would alter your calculations dramatically.

I personally think that Carbon honycomb structures should be investigated for H2 storage. I've heard some people are working on it but have not heard anything since then.

[edit on 9-10-2005 by sardion2000]

This is a bit OT but has anyone tried one of these hydrogen fuel cell model cars?


Fuel Cell Car and Experiment Kit


Hydrogen Fuel Cell Model Car

If they can work on a small scale then what is stopping it from being used on a larger scale?

Even with more efficient electrolysis of hydrogen it adds a middleman manufacturer that must provide the hydrogen, possibly transfer it to another medium and transport it to distribution locations, where with electricity that is avoided.

Originally posted by NothingMakesSense
While you're correct that the ammonia-hydrogen idea will produce deadly byproducts, so do battereis, even if they're recycled. Batteries are also more expensive to replace.

Properly recycled batteries should produce minimal toxic byproducts, unless you can prove otherwise.

Last I checked, hydrogen fuel cells and the hydrogen storage systems or whatever inefficient conversion mechanism (like ammonia) that might be in place are more expensive or as expensive as the best and latest batteries.

Switch to Hydrogen

The Front Page of Bob Lazar's solution



Sample picture of conversion


Third Option

3. The 3rd option is simply the only way to go. There are materials call Hydrides that absorb Hydrogen like a sponge absorbs water. Typically, the tanks are filled with granulated Hydrides, and Hydrogen is pressurized into the material. Hydrides have many advantages over liquid & gas. One is that the density of the Hydrogen stored in the Hydride can be GREATER than that of liquid Hydrogen. This translates directly into smaller and fewer storage tanks.
Once the Hydride is "charged" with Hydrogen, the Hydrogen becomes chemically bonded to the chemical. Even opening the tank, or cutting it in half will not release the Hydrogen gas. In addition, you could even fire incendiary bullets through the tank and the Hydride would only smolder like a cigarette. It is in fact, a safer storage system than your Gasoline tank is.
Then how do you get the Hydrogen back out? To release the Hydrogen gas from the Hydride, it simply needs to be heated. This is either done electrically, using the waste exhaust heat, or using the waste radiator coolant heat.

Our kits heat the Hydride tanks electrically, and as soon at the Hydride is sufficiently warm, Hydrogen is released from the tanks and the on-board computer detects the presence of Hydrogen pressure. The fuel system remains in "Hydrogen" mode until the tank pressure begins to drop. If the tanks run out of Hydrogen, the engine will seamlessly switch over to Gasoline, which enables the car to run conventionally until the Hydrogen tanks are refilled.


Comment: This thing must really work, because a Google search yields first views of "debunking," with the usual hysterical denunciations. Using hydrides appears to solve the compression and low temperature problems.

Well I am ready to buy my solar panels, and hydrogen generator as soon as all is totally verified. Kiss the Oil Companies and their price gouging goodbye forever, except for Penzoil and any meger gasoline switchover.

Don't forget the solar panels that create the hydrogen for free after initial hardware funding or your own solar panels on the roof:



[edit on 12-10-2005 by SkipShipman]

Originally posted by SkipShipman
Third Option

3. The 3rd option is simply the only way to go.

That third option looks interesting.
I'll have to do some more reading up on that.

Hydrides are pretty much the only viable storage method I've ever seen. The problem is that they are METAL hydrides, so it's a tank full of iron or some other easily bonded metal.

Depending on what metal it is, fouling (rust) can occur as oxygen impurities (no gas is ever 100% pure) are mixed in there with the hydrogen. That means that over time it'll need to be flushed and replaced with a fresh load. This wouldn't be extremely expensive, but about $200-500 to guess (depending on the purity needed) because when I looked for fine grained iron particles once they were about that much for the volume of one of the above tanks shown.

The weight of one of these things is enourmous, one person wouldn't be able to lift it. The more weight you add to a vehicle the worse its mileage and the worse it's crashes as the collision force is increased. I'm not talking about a couple of hundred pounds, but several hundred pounds. Imagine that tank as a solid piece of metal, only a bit smaller, and imagine how heavy it would be. If you've ever lifted even smaller pieces of solid iron you'll know what I mean.

Even if the energy storage density was twice that of liquid hydrogen it would still be less than that of gasoline and much less than that of diesel.

High heat is required to release the hydrogen from the metals, as to reverse the reaction you must replace the energy that was lost as the hydrogen went to a lower energy state and bonded with the metal. This bogs down the efficiency.

There is still the problem of hydrogen production from natural means that don't yet exist, which is pretty much the problem with every alternative fuel.

Will it work? Yep. Is it the best replacement for petroleum? Nope..

Originally posted by shbaz
Even with more efficient electrolysis of hydrogen it adds a middleman manufacturer

How do you figure that one? All it is, it's a better electrolysis method I don't see how it will add another layer of middlemen. The current middlemen will benefit, another layer will not be created it would be too inefficient for business.

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by shbaz
Even with more efficient electrolysis of hydrogen it adds a middleman manufacturer

How do you figure that one? All it is, it's a better electrolysis method I don't see how it will add another layer of middlemen. The current middlemen will benefit, another layer will not be created it would be too inefficient for business.

Of course you don't, because you're not thinking in the same terms. You think that people are going to buy these things and put them in their garages, however the expense of the systems, the inherent lack of safety in dealing with explosive gas plus the slow hydrogen generation due to insufficient energy is going to hamper that (else we might be fueling our cars up with something easily and inexpensively produced like an alcohol/nitroglycerine mix). So there will be a middleman hydrogen producer regardless of the efficiency and you end up with this scenario:

Electricity:
Power generation (-profit) > line transport to station (-profit) > battery charge > electric motor

Hydrogen:
Power generation (-profit) > hydrogen disassociation factory (-profit) > distribution station (-profit) > hydride tank > fuel cell > electric motor

Though admittedly, it is possible that the fueling stations could generate hydrogen with a similarly set up high voltage tap or the hydrogen generation plant could have an in-house generator.

It takes a lot of energy to charge batteries at high efficiency - but it takes a lot more to create hydrogen at moderate efficiency. On a large scale small percent differences can mean huge amounts of energy loss.

[edit on 10/13/2005 by shbaz]

Originally posted by shbaz

Of course you don't, because you're not thinking in the same terms. You think that people are going to buy these things and put them in their garages,

I do? When did I ever say that...all that technology would do is make the existing middlemen more efficient(And as a result more profitable) it will not add another layer of middlemen(unless the inventor is idiotic which I highly doubt)

PS In the future don't put words into my mouth...

[edit on 13-10-2005 by sardion2000]

i saw this a year ago and seems to fit the subject well. from my understanding of it, would provide easy stoarge, easlily obtainable catalysts and highly available ingredients.

www.matr.net...

its based on the use of aluminum as a catalyst between water and drano. go figure huh. best part is it was developed by a dropout!!!! i guess just like me he dropped out to further his education in fields necessary for self preservation.

Enjoy,

Originally posted by shbaz

That means that over time it'll need to be flushed and replaced with a fresh load. This wouldn't be extremely expensive, but about $200-500 to guess (depending on the purity needed) because when I looked for fine grained iron particles once they were about that much for the volume of one of the above tanks shown.

Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know how often this would have to be done?

Cost-effectiveness will make or break the technology, even if it makes it onto the market someday... as long as these things cost more than gas, they won't get off the ground.

Originally posted by The Parallelogram
Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know how often this would have to be done?

Cost-effectiveness will make or break the technology, even if it makes it onto the market someday... as long as these things cost more than gas, they won't get off the ground.

No, it's dependant on the purity of the gas involved. In electrolysis there will be some O2 leaked into the hydrogen side, but I wouldn't know exactly how much because it's a variable amount depending on the apparatus.

Much like gasoline, natural gas, etc the purity would be regulated and the supply would probably drift at just pure enough to pass regulations.