Is hydrogen as a “clean fuel” still a dream? What can we do?

Nowadays people talk about hydrogen economy, hydrogen fuel, hydrogen energy, and hydrogen fuel cells. These are hot topics. In many of these talks, people mentioned that hydrogen is abundant, hydrogen is clean fuel. There is no pollution in hydrogen combustion, only water will be formed in the oxidation of hydrogen, nothing but water. However, we need to know: there is not such a thing as “commercial hydrogen fuel” today and in the near future.

The problem is that we don’t have commercial elemental hydrogen in nature. There is some hydrogen in the atmosphere, but only about 0.1 ppm, too low a concentration. Today, we have no practical technology to collect this source of hydrogen in an economic way. If we need hydrogen, we need to produce it from hydrogen-containing compounds. Large scale commercial production of hydrogen is conducted via four major methods: 1) steam reforming of hydrocarbons (such as methane), 2) water gas formation and water gas shift reaction from coal, 3) partial oxidation of heavy oil, and, 4) electrolysis of water, as shown in Equations 1-4.

There are some research activities on hydrogen generation such as water splitting via photolysis, thermal decomposition of water, reaction of water with metals. These are just lab research. In many industrial processes we need hydrogen as a raw material, such as in methanol synthesis, synthetic ammonia for fertilizer production, hydrogenation in petrochemical processes, etc. In those cases we need to produce hydrogen via any of the four approaches mentioned above.

Can we generate energy from hydrogen fuel in a commercially viable manner? No way, at least not now, not in the near future, with current technologies. For example, in water electrolysis, huge amount of electric energy is needed to produce hydrogen and oxygen (the reverse reaction of combustion of hydrogen in oxygen). The energy efficiency for water electrolysis is only about 21%. Are we going to use this cost hydrogen to combust to acquire energy? This means we input 5 units of electric energy to get one unit of hydrogen energy and then to convert it into heat or whatsoever forms of energy via forming hydrogen and subsequent oxidation. Let alone any process cost. Are we crazy? Why don’t we directly use the 5 units of electric energy in the beginning?

Similarly, in methane steam reforming, we need a huge capital to build up apparatus. We need to waste a huge amount of methane’s enthalpy to maintain the high temperature (> 700 oC) for the reaction, to produce that precious hydrogen. Do we want to burn the hydrogen to obtain the “thermal energy”? Then why don’t we burn methane in the very beginning? In order to get certain amount of thermal energy via the “clean hydrogen”, we need to consume methane at least doubling the equivalent amount of energy of hydrogen. Therefore, don’t even think of a “hydrogen fuel” now. Not now, not in the near future. We produce hydrogen in order to use it as raw materials.

However, we use hydrogen as fuel for fuel cells for decades. Why have we been doing this? At this moment we just want to develop the technology of fuel cells that may be used for special situations and for the future. As for hydrogen as a commercial fuel, it could only become possible after we obtain breakthrough in photolysis of water or in nuclear fusion technology which can provide endless energy for hydrogen production. What can we do? We need to work hard to make breakthrough in photolysis and/or nuclear fusion technologies.


[edit on 17-2-2008 by fuelcell]

[edit on 17-2-2008 by fuelcell]

hydrgen is a dead end.
he3 will be used for fusion.
electric cars will use a combination of Lithium Phosphate batterys and ultracapacitors.

Originally posted by bigspud
hydrgen is a dead end.
he3 will be used for fusion.
electric cars will use a combination of Lithium Phosphate batterys and ultracapacitors.

We are working on water splitting with visible light or other forms of energy such as plasma. It could be a solution. But it is a long way.

The current battery for HEV is NiMH (nickel metal hydride). LiFePO4 is of good potential. But the power is low yet (discharge-charge rate too low). There are also some difficulties with supercapacitors.

I am not familiar with he3 fusion. Is it more feasible than D and T fusion? Any details?

The good thing is that people are trying hard to solve problems.

[edit on 17-2-2008 by fuelcell]

If we invested in the infrastructure we could have a hydrogen economy. They just don't want to since it would decentralize energy production and cut off the petro-dollar.

As for hydrogen production one can use bacteria:
www.wired.com...

as well as good old fashioned electrolysis via solar energy.
www.patentstorm.us...

The storage problem may be the bigger issue, but that has probably been solved as well, say via metal hydrides or a similar technology.

Originally posted by fuelcell

Can we generate energy from hydrogen fuel in a commercially viable manner? No way, at least not now, not in the near future, with current technologies.

I think we can do it with current technologies. The industry is just narrow minded about how to go about it. All they want to do is tried and mature technologies in their fields, nothing different. We need to look farther down the road and realize that we need to wean ourselves from just wasting energy like we do now.

Originally posted by MBF

I think we can do it with current technologies. The industry is just narrow minded about how to go about it. All they want to do is tried and mature technologies in their fields, nothing different. We need to look farther down the road and realize that we need to wean ourselves from just wasting energy like we do now.

I don't think they will allow it. Technology suppression is alive and well. All kinds of promising low cost energy devices and energy saving devices have been suppressed, sometimes via violence. It's a sad world we live in.

Good old Nuclear Fission would provide the CO2 free electrical energy in order to get hydrogen out of water, in order for your car to burn it and, erm, make water....

Problem is, all those namby-pampy greeny dudes don't like Nuclear energy, so that's a dead end.

Other have mentioned bacterial processes as sources of hydrogen, which is a good path to follow, but can they produce enough hydrogen in this manner to fuel the entire globe? That sounds like a lot of bug-filled vats...

Originally posted by stumason
Other have mentioned bacterial processes as sources of hydrogen, which is a good path to follow, but can they produce enough hydrogen in this manner to fuel the entire globe? That sounds like a lot of bug-filled vats...

The bigger question that should immediately come to mind is:
What happens when the bacteria get out into the environment, mutate into thousands of different forms, reproduce a trillion-fold, and begin to change our atmosphere into one with hundreds of times today's hydrogen content?

That is precisely the kind of question popular education conditions us not to ask. After all, science and research is always "good thing" right?

Jon

In any case, it will take another 20 years before its practical. Bio-diesel is the near future. It's already for sale in a limited way, works with existing diesel engines, and is renewable. Europe has the best diesel engines around, just as good as gasoline engines. this hype about hydrogen is just that, hype. It's a way for the oil company's to get some of heat off of themselves while they rape us on oil prices.

I was thinking hydrogen fuel would make a water shortage.
Then since H2 burns into water maybe not.
A redistribution of water would take place.
Well its better than a carbon tax.

The AC method of extracting hydrogen from water on the
run by Stanly Meyer was quit impressive.

ED: Supposedly that are free energy hydrogen molecule process
H22H and one for Helium with super sparking, and the
Papp Nobel Gas Engine.


[edit on 2/18/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

[edit on 2/18/2008 by TeslaandLyne]

If they used the ocean for a water source, maybe we could collect water and table salt from driving the cars

I don't think the bacteria would mutate and destroy the world. If so, all the millions of current strands should also mutate and destroy the world.

I don't fully agree with bio-fuels, since that are not a cure, but a bad patch. It may replace rotted dinosaur guts, but, it still doesn't burn clean. I am more worried about inhaling fresh air as people did a few hundred years ago, than adapt to sniffing exhaust.

Ethanol is not a clean replacement, bio-diesel isn't exactly clean either. They are just a transitional step.


I for one, am not against nuclear power. I am however against the b.s., since power derived from nuclear plants isn't any cheaper than power from coal plants. What happened to the hype that nuclear would end up as clean fuel? Why not have the people pay for the plants with taxes (I am sure there is wasteful spending somewhere that can make it happen if cut).

Of course, I am one who thinks in these times, power is an essential necessity for life now. So many people don't know how to live off the land or be clean, loss of power can lead to their death. That doesn't include those who are on life-supporting devices like oxygen machines and refrigeration for diabetic medicine.


So ... setting up nuclear plants, in conjunction with as much solar, wind, and water power as possible should provide enough clean energy to run the nation, world, as well as produce clean fuels and storage of energy for transportation.


As far as nuclear waste byproduct ... if scientists put their brilliance to work, they could figure out a use for it ... radiation is energy, just need to find a safe way to store and convert it to usable energy.

Originally posted by SevenThunders
If we invested in the infrastructure we could have a hydrogen economy. They just don't want to since it would decentralize energy production and cut off the petro-dollar. …..

The storage problem may be the bigger issue, but that has probably been solved as well, say via metal hydrides or a similar technology.

I agree. There has been a lot of rivalry/fight among different groups regarding the ‘energy policies and practices”.

The storage and distribution is a big problem. Metal hydrides/complexes etc are among hot researches. No breakthrough yet.

Originally posted by MBF

Originally posted by fuelcell

Can we generate energy from hydrogen fuel in a commercially viable manner? No way, at least not now, not in the near future, with current technologies.

I think we can do it with current technologies. The industry is just narrow minded about how to go about it. All they want to do is tried and mature technologies in their fields, nothing different. We need to look farther down the road and realize that we need to wean ourselves from just wasting energy like we do now.

You should be right. The industry is also spending money to explore different ways. But those ways are not mature in the eye of engineering stand, let alone commercial stand. A long way to go.

Originally posted by SevenThunders

Originally posted by MBF

I think we can do it with current technologies. …..

I don't think they will allow it. Technology suppression is alive and well. All kinds of promising low cost energy devices and energy saving devices have been suppressed, sometimes via violence. It's a sad world we live in.

There is always technology suppression. A sad thing. Business owners can more money via monopoly, via anti-dumping, etc. Technology is only the last thing they want to do, in a lot of cases. For them, playing politics is easier.

Originally posted by stumason
Good old Nuclear Fission would provide the CO2 free electrical energy in order to get hydrogen out of water, in order for your car to burn it and, erm, make water....

Problem is, all those namby-pampy greeny dudes don't like Nuclear energy, so that's a dead end.

Other have mentioned bacterial processes as sources of hydrogen, which is a good path to follow, but can they produce enough hydrogen in this manner to fuel the entire globe? That sounds like a lot of bug-filled vats...

I agree. We need nuclear electricity and hydraulic dams. We are not advanced enough to ignore neither of them.

Originally posted by Voxel

Originally posted by stumason
Other have mentioned bacterial processes as sources of hydrogen, which is a good path to follow, but can they produce enough hydrogen in this manner to fuel the entire globe? That sounds like a lot of bug-filled vats...

The bigger question that should immediately come to mind is:
What happens when the bacteria get out into the environment, mutate into thousands of different forms, reproduce a trillion-fold, and begin to change our atmosphere into one with hundreds of times today's hydrogen content?

That is precisely the kind of question popular education conditions us not to ask. After all, science and research is always "good thing" right?

Jon

Yes. It is stipulated to strictly isolate the bugs. It is also stipulated to destroy all the bacteria after the experiments, in case it might cause disasters once leaking into the nature.

I can’t agree more. We need scientists to explore all possibilities. We need engineers to design viable pathways to realize what scientists have found out. We also need good business man to run the processes in a profitable way. And the government/other agencies to guarantee that many important activities should be pursued even though they are not profitable at the moment.



Thanks a lot for all your comments. I’ll be back later to reply the others.

Hydrogen for transportation fuel has been dead for many years. A few government feel good grants out there but it's basically dead. Too many lawyers and too many stupid people.

mikell

Originally posted by Voxel
The bigger question that should immediately come to mind is:
What happens when the bacteria get out into the environment, mutate into thousands of different forms, reproduce a trillion-fold, and begin to change our atmosphere into one with hundreds of times today's hydrogen content?

That is precisely the kind of question popular education conditions us not to ask. After all, science and research is always "good thing" right?

Jon

Science and research is always a good thing. How people USE science and research isn't always a good thing.

I don't think popular education conditions us in any such way. The reason technology is misused is generally a matter of economics or greed, not poor education.

Nuclear energy has been, by and large, a good thing for the West, at least. However, it is very expensive, as was the science that produced it. But it's not unsafe. When enough money is spent on it.

I don't see any reason why bug-made hydrogen ought to be any different.

LW

Hydrogen is a good alternative till more advanced energy sources are perfected.
Fuel cells for point source generation of electricity are an awsome idea for a stationary object like a building, and some modern fuel cells can utilize any gasous hydro-carbon.
My ex wife is an engineer and was in charge of the piping design for a fuel cell instalation in a old(1920's) 14 story office building here.
They put in a fuel cell that cracks the hydro carbon with a catylist, then combines the oxygen and hydrogen to produce electricity and hot and cold water, pure water, and the C is scrubbed out. They generate more
electricity than the full building uses and the rest goes into the public grid. The hot and cold water are used for the heating and cooling of the building, and to provided hot and cold potable water to the building.
The system fit into the same space as the existing boilers, provides electricity and heating and cooling using only 30% as much natural gas as the old boiler used to just to heat it.
The only way to make gaseous H2 a viable vehicle fuel, is to localize prodution to areas where there are ample natural energy sources, such as solar, geothermal or tidal are available. We will never be able to use up all the sea water available to us.
Look for Iceland to become an vastly wealthy energy broker just like Saudi Arabia or the other gulf states.
They are going to use their abundant geothermal energy resources to make H2 to ship to north america and Europe. The plans are already in motion, BP and Shell have already started.
There are H2 filling stations going in in Ca gasoline stations. A couple of new mercedes and beemers have H2 fuel injection maps and a space for the larger H2 tank alraedy built in.
Theres a So Cal company that has a way to store gaseous H2 in a solid metal hydrate, that will release the gaseous H2 with the application of a small current.
He3 is not the answer for power generation, anytime. Its too rare, the reaction isnt as efficient or easy to contain as dueterium and tritium fusion, so larger and more reactors would have to be built than with traditional fusion.
Its not going to be anytime soon that fusion of any kind is available in a package small enough for vehicles.
As a society we cant go back to a time of no mechanical contrivances, way to late for that. If the worlds transportation network was to fail, think of the disasterous implications for the developed world, billions of people would start to starve in just a few weeks, or days in some cases.
Bio diesel, and diesel made from natural gas are very good alternatives for some applications, like as an interim fuel for existing large equipment and engines, things that are so large that they will be in service for many years.

It will be a very long time before batteries will be able to replace fuel as an energy source in vehicles. I have an electric fork lift, it weighs about 14,000 lb 6,000lb is the counter weight, 5,000lb is the battery and the remaining 3k pound is the whole rest of the vehicle. The battery is weighs more than the vehicle itself. The engine in the natural gas powered version weighs about 800 lb. Thats a huge difference in weight, therfore efficency.
It will run for about 2hrs solidly before needing a 6-8hr charge.
The natural gas powered one will run for about 3 days for three shifts on a 30 gal tank.
H2 is the next logical step away from burning hydrocarbons.
It it can be generated in large quantities and can be containerized for distribution, it can be exchanged with hydro-carbons to be burned in things like large boilers and turbines. Piston engines can be made to run on it.
It doesnt require many inputs of energy to get energy out, as in the case of agriculturaly based fuel ideas.
We really need to learn to be flexible in our thinking of how to generate and harness the energy our society needs to continue and to grow out of our adolesence.
What will work for some one in Germany might not be the best fuel for some one from Brazil or the USA.

[

Originally posted by punkinworks

Hydrogen is a good alternative till more advanced energy sources are perfected.
Fuel cells for point source generation of electricity are an awsome idea for a stationary object like a building, and some modern fuel cells can utilize any gasous hydro-carbon.
My ex wife is an engineer and was in charge of the piping design for a fuel cell instalation in a old(1920's) 14 story office building here.
………………………………

The only way to make gaseous H2 a viable vehicle fuel, is to localize prodution to areas where there are ample natural energy sources, such as solar, geothermal or tidal are available. We will never be able to use up all the sea water available to us.
Look for Iceland to become an vastly wealthy energy broker just like Saudi Arabia or the other gulf states.
They are going to use their abundant geothermal energy resources to make H2 to ship to north america and Europe. The plans are already in motion, BP and Shell have already started.
……
As a society we cant go back to a time of no mechanical contrivances, way to late for that. If the …

It doesnt require many inputs of energy to get energy out, as in the case of agriculturaly based fuel ideas.
We really need to learn to be flexible in our thinking of how to generate and harness the energy our society needs to continue and to grow out of our adolesence.
What will work for some one in Germany might not be the best fuel for some one from Brazil or the USA.

Thanks for your information.

I guess the fuel cell you mentioned is a solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) if it directly use hydrocarbon without pre-transforming it into hydrogen. There are a lot of quarrels and even fight regarding what type of fuel cells should be used for a certain application, all related to the direction of commerce and governmental supports.

I agree that in some areas when the natural energy is abundant, it is probable to produce hydrogen with a profit. After all, if for large scale production, profit is always put before social significance without a government support.

Not many people agree we go back to old days, except some minimalists. We don’t agree with consumerist, either. That’s why we are working to find alternative energy, alternative raw materials, more energy-efficient technologies.

EV and HEV are another story. HEV is already commercialized. It is still some gap for EV. The major problem is related battery materials now.

I agree that we should be more flexible in energy policies, viewpoints, etc.

Originally posted by bossman

In any case, it will take another 20 years before its practical. Bio-diesel is the near future. It's already for sale in a limited way, works with existing diesel engines, and is renewable. Europe has the best diesel engines around, just as good as gasoline engines. this hype about hydrogen is just that, hype. It's a way for the oil company's to get some of heat off of themselves while they rape us on oil prices.

Right. A lot company has established with government subsidies to produce bio-diesel and bioethanol.

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne
I was thinking hydrogen fuel would make a water shortage.
Then since H2 burns into water maybe not.
A redistribution of water would take place.
Well its better than a carbon tax.

The AC method of extracting hydrogen from water on the
run by Stanly Meyer was quit impressive.

It won’t cause water shortage, generally speaking. Because heavy hydrocarbons, or methane will form hydrogen, which is to be oxidized to form water. More water is formed than consumed in these processes. Even for water hydrolysis, no net consumption of water for the reaction.

Of cause, the operation of the processes consume water. That’s another story.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
If they used the ocean for a water source, maybe we could collect water and table salt from driving the cars

I don't think the bacteria would mutate and destroy the world. If so, all the millions of current strands should also mutate and destroy the world.


I for one, am not against nuclear power. I am however against the b.s., since power derived from nuclear plants isn't any cheaper than power from coal plants. What happened to the hype that nuclear would end up as clean fuel? Why not have the people pay for the plants with taxes (I am sure there is wasteful spending somewhere that can make it happen if cut).
;………………………
s far as nuclear waste byproduct ... if scientists put their brilliance to work, they could figure out a use for it ... radiation is energy, just need to find a safe way to store and convert it to usable energy.

There are big concerns for the bugs/bacteria produced and used in the lab. So it must be strictly under control, in case….

I agree on utilization of nuclear energy and hydraulic energy.

Originally posted by mikellmikell
Hydrogen for transportation fuel has been dead for many years. A few government feel good grants out there but it's basically dead. Too many lawyers and too many stupid people.

mikell

Hydrogen isnot really dead, as I know. We are still working to generate hydrogen in a more economic way.

Originally posted by LoneWeasel

Originally posted by Voxel
The bigger question that should immediately come to mind is:
What happens when the bacteria get out into the environment, mutate into thousands of different forms, reproduce a trillion-fold, and begin to change our atmosphere into one with hundreds of times today's hydrogen content?

That is precisely the kind of question popular education conditions us not to ask. After all, science and research is always "good thing" right?

Jon

Science and research is always a good thing. How people USE science and research isn't always a good thing.

I don't think popular education conditions us in any such way. The reason technology is misused is generally a matter of economics or greed, not poor education.


LW

Agree. It is how we use the knowledge makes the difference, in most cases. I guess that Voxel mean that scientists need to think of “reality” in doing research, such as more practical, not just curiosity. I would think Both of you are right. We have pure and applied sciences.

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
If they used the ocean for a water source, maybe we could collect water and table salt from driving the cars

If ocean water is used in electrolysis, you don't produce hydrogen, oxygen and table salt. You produce hydrogen gas, chlorine gas and caustic acid.

I don't understand how Hydrogen is cleaner than Gas. We are still potentially creating another world of biological problems with the result of burning hydrogen that we wouldn't be able to discover for a very very long time. What is everyone's beef with the 'air car'? Compressed air is such a sweet concept because the end result is the beginning result. I dont believe burning any chemical is the correct step. That's just one guy's opinion.

reply to post by blowfishdl


Hydrogen is cleaner than gas because only water is produced when it is burned. No green house gases are formed at all, no carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide.

The compressed air car has to have something that compresses the air before it can be used.

[edit on 18-2-2008 by MBF]