Hydrogen energy. (Waste energy creates energy !)

I just came across an article and it doesn't seem to be picked up here on ATS.

Waste Energy Creates Hydrogen A newly developed method harvests small amounts of waste energy and harnesses them to turn water into usable hydrogen fuel.

Of course hydrogen energy is always been on the downside in the fight against oil.
But maybe...this can finally mean turning point ? Who knows.

The Article.

Piezoelectric materials that create energy when flexed might go beyond recharging our smart phones and help make hydrogen fuel. Scientists have harnessed piezoelectric energy from nanocrystal fibers to split water into oxygen and hydrogen gas.

Visit the Link for the full article.

I think this is a great advancement in the technology but the biggest question will be.
Will the oil industry tolerate such technology or even fund it, Or. Will they try to slow down or even stop it from becoming reality.

I don't know and my current feeling says they will definitely put an effort in making this, yet another ignored or forgotten technology.

I think this is the perfect occasion to debate and discuss Hydrogen energy on the board again. For I believe it is not really getting the attention it needs. Is it not the smartest option to have an energy source based on the most common element in the universe ?

To make the topic a bit more complete I have also seen some other technologies that I was unaware of which I did not find here on ATS.

Making Artificial Leaves to Produce Hydrogen

Again ! This is beautiful. I don't see why this is getting so little attention.

High-Pressure Diamond Anvil Creates a New Solid from Xenon and Hydrogen

Hydrogen-Economy on the Way? New Hydrogen-Storage Method Discovered

I'd like to hear all you thoughts on it, if possible backed up with evidence what even an uneducated person like me can understand.
Is a hydrogen economy wise? Will the oil industry make it impossible ? Or the opposite. Will they make it happen ?
Why ? How ? When ?

Sincerely yours

-SK

PS.
I know it can explode very well ( Hydrogen ) and I'm not interested in any new way of building bigger bombs with it. Thank you.





[edit on 14-3-2010 by Sinter Klaas]

I am a believer in Hydrogen. I think we will find a way to produce it in an energy efficient way and help our world be a better place. I do think it will take a lot of convincing to make the producers of oil willfully give up the monopoly they hold on us.

Its getting plenty of attention. Lots of people are researching it and books are being written about it. Its on Yahoo front page stories and the local news.

I disagree that it is not getting an enormous amount of media attention and funded research.

I am not sure what you mean about it being on the downside in the fight against oil either. We have oil. We have to infrastructure to refine and transport it. We have devices that use it. With hydrogen we have alot of neat ideas and a lot of well funded scientist working on making those ideas a reality. We don't have hydrogen as a viable alternative or as a competitor to oil. Not yet.

Building hydrogen production plants and laying the framework to create a sustainable industry off of hydrogen would take massive, massive investment. The only thing that could possibly make it worthwile is the fact that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and we had a dirt cheap way to get it.

Its got to be a lot cheaper than what we already have or else its not going to be worth investing in for another 100 years or so. Maybe, if what they say about current oil supply is correct.

You know before 1886 we didn't really know a good way to get aluminium. Really. Most abundant metal on earth and we couldn't figure out how to get it. It was super expensive. Hydrogen is like that. Its all over the place, but we just don't have a good way to get it and to get enough of it.

And we are gonna need a lot of it. Hydrogen carries less energy than things like coal, natural gas and oil. Its not economical except that whole thing about it being the most abundant element in the universe. Even if its not as efficient as natural gas, if we never run out who cares?

Also keep in mind that its not like we are suddenly going to get it for free either. Its not happening until energy companies can sell it cheaper than modern fuel sources and still make massive profits. Who else would build the refineries? Who would pay for the infrastructure? Google? We will still buy it just like we buy energy today. So basically we need a process that will make enough for EVERYBODY and cheap enough that everybody wants it and cheap enough that the energy industry can make a better profit than they do today.

This is a neat idea that might speed the whole process up. Basically it states that there is a whole lot of hydrogen in our earth ready to be used. That would be great if it pans out.

en.wikipedia.org...


[edit on 15-3-2010 by garritynet]

reply to post by garritynet

Refining aluminum is a whole different critter than using hydrogen for fuel. When refining aluminum, one uses energy to isolate the metal in its elemental form for structural uses. The purpose of 'refining' hydrogen is to use it for energy itself. At present, it takes just as much energy to isolate hydrogen as one gets when it is used (more actually, since no operation is 100% efficient).

Look at it this way: if a jug of hydrogen gives you 1000 units of energy (for sake of argument), then at present it will probably take 1010 units of energy to make the hydrogen in the first place. It is cheaper and easier to just use the original energy source. For example, if you are using oil to produce hydrogen from water, it is taking more oil to make the hydrogen than it would take tyo just use the oil in the first place.

It is possible that we may find a way to produce hydrogen from compounds for less energy, but this would be over-unity energy. Science at present does not recognize over-unity, thus such a device would have to be subject to severe and intensive testing before anyone would even consider investing in it. Present hydrogen production methods are typically using 'waste' energy to split water, simply recapturing some of that energy in the form of hydrogen gas. This is only feasible in tiny amounts, and in areas where it is cheaper to hydrolyze water than to use the energy recaptured in any other form. In any case, there is not enough production potential in such cases to warrant building an infrastructure.

Hydrogen is still an energy medium, not an energy source. When that changes, you will hear me scream "YES!", I promise.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


It was just an example of a seemingly abundant resource that we at one point lacked an economical method of refining. He wanted to know when we were gonna start using hydrogen as energy and I said when we figure out how to get it.

I agree with what you are saying. Trust me, I do. But if we can figure out some way of getting an understood naturally occuring phenomena to do the work for us, we wouldn't have to worry about over unity. Or if it just so happens that we have a huge amount of hydrogen underground and have a way of getting to it.

I'm not really holding my breath but I was just trying to answer his question about why we are not more "gung ho" about this to the best of my abilities.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by garritynet]

Next Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP)

Use of nuclear energy as the heat source of a large-scale hydrogen production operation would result in substantially lower carbon emissions over a natural gas fired steam methane reforming operation. Nuclear power plants are also capable of co-generating electricity and hydrogen which could provide additional commercial flexibility.

Areas of commercial interest in hydrogen include: oil refining, ammonia manufacturing (fertilizer), and methanol production. Hydrogen can be combined with gasoline, ethanol, methanol, or natural gas to increase engine performance and reduce pollution. This increasing demand for hydrogen in the refining sector is driven by the need to produce cleaner transportation fuel for meeting environmental regulations. Hydrogen can be added in the refining process to create a cleaner-burning fuel. 1

The high temperature gas-cooled reactor can provide heat for industrial process at temperatures from 700 to 950°C. This reactor has opened the door for a wider range of commercial applications than possible with the current light water reactor technology that operates near 300°C.

NGNP is based on the safety of the high temperature gas-cooled reactor and makes improvements beyond the already demonstrated safety of commercial light water reactors. The high temperature gas-cooled reactor will meet and exceed current nuclear standards in reliability, proliferation resistance, waste management and security capabilities.

www.nextgenerationnuclearplant.com...

Hydrogen Production from Nuclear Energy

BP executive: “At the refinery gate, hydrogen’s cost-mile driven is actually substantially less than conventional fuel because of the outstanding efficiency of the fuel-cell engine. Hydrogen’s current high cost can be attributed to the expense of transporting and dispersing it.”
Conclusions

Hydrogen, when produced from fossil fuels, is no solution for energy independence or environmental compatibilty

Wind, solar, and geothermal do not possess the energy density to generate sufficient hydrogen

The transition to a nuclear/hydrogen economy can begin today with electrolysis

www.jlab.org...

According to the above source, 241 gigawatt of electrical capacity would be required to replace fossil fuels in transportation, or about 190 AP1000 reactors. The NGNP doing this would be far more efficient, however.

One nuclear fuel pellet [the size of a pencil eraser] could make enough hydrogen for 220 cars to go 100 miles

nuclear.inl.gov...

[edit on 15/3/2010 by C0bzz]

I came across a video awhile back. It was some machinist that claim they have built a steam pump that creates more energy than it uses.

I know I know, but they had a working model. Now, I did not start looking more into it.

It basically was a drum inside a drum that had holes in the internal drum. Now the clearance between the internal drum that rotated was only slightly smaller than the exterior drum/shell. I do not have any idea how the water flowed or the steam created. I only seen a snippet of it. That is the next little side investigation on my agenda. Only so much free time though.

Let the game of who develops the next energy source begin.

Still wish I knew how one guy was supposedly fracturing water using less energy than was created.

Anyway, Peace and Power.

Even if hydrogen production uses more energy than it produces, there could still be long term benefits from creating hydrogen as a portable fuel source.

If we concentrate our pollution producing energy generating facilities it becomes easier to manage that pollution, much easier than millions of mobile vehicles creating pollution wherever they go.

Think about it for a moment... It would be easier to scrub, sequesture or otherwise contain the CO2 (and other pollutants) produced at a single coal plant than it would to do the same for 10000 cars, trucks, ships, trains and planes moving about. Yet they amount of energy produced and used would be roughly equivalent. (I am using theoretical numbers off the top of my head, it is the idea I am trying to convey, not the engineering behind it.)

Hydrogen could be a great boon for the environment even if it does not eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

Another idea I have heard bandied about would be the use of liquid hydrogen to cool super conducting power cables, allowing the transmission of power created in remote geographical areas to be transmitted to populated areas with little loss. As a side benefit, you would also have a ready made pipeline to move large amounts of hydrogen from one place to another to be used as a mobile fuel source.

Most people do not want a power plant located near them, but too much power is lost during the transmission of produced power over large distances, so they are forced to accept power plants in areas where they are not welcome, and all of their associated pollution.

Moving power plants outside of populated areas while still being able to transport that power effeciently would be a boon to most communities.

reply to post by garritynet

I may have read more into your post than was intended. If so, please accept my apologies.

There are just so many people that think that hydrogen is available and the solution for all the energy woes, if only those big evil oil companies would get out of its way. The fact is that this is simply not the case. So, yeah, I tend to get a bit defensive over hydrogen. I think there may well come a day when it becomes cheap and plentiful, but we simply aren't there yet.

===============================================
reply to post by BomSquad

It would be easier to scrub, sequesture or otherwise contain the CO2 (and other pollutants) produced at a single coal plant than it would to do the same for 10000 cars, trucks, ships, trains and planes moving about. Yet they amount of energy produced and used would be roughly equivalent.

You make a good point here. It is considerably less expensive and much more effective to remove concentrated pollutants. I do have to take exception with one thing, however: CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is the source of all life on the planet and a naturally-occurring atmospheric component.

Of course, the added cost of retrofitting automobiles to run on a gaseous fuel as opposed to a liquid one, and the cost of retrofitting delivery points to handle and dispense hydrogen would be tremendous, possibly well beyond the means of the country to implement in any time frame less than decades.

Another idea I have heard bandied about would be the use of liquid hydrogen to cool super conducting power cables, allowing the transmission of power created in remote geographical areas to be transmitted to populated areas with little loss. As a side benefit, you would also have a ready made pipeline to move large amounts of hydrogen from one place to another to be used as a mobile fuel source.

Probably impractical, for two reasons. First would be the sheer cost of replacing power lines with power lines inside insulated pipelines. Second would be the energy cost involved with not only cooling the hydrogen to liquid temperatures, but in maintaining that cold.

The power losses right now in our power grid are large, but manageable. The long-distance lines have such a high voltage that the current required to move vast amounts of electricity is minimized, minimizing the associated losses (electrical power transmission losses are a function of current, not voltage). I doubt enough energy would be saved form using low-temperature superconducting lines to offset the power requirements needed to keep the lines superconducting. Also, at such temperatures metals tend to become brittle, which would lead to a loss in reliability. The power lines we use are relatively hardy even in the face of natural forces. If a 2.0 earthquake shattered lines regularly, California would be in darkness most of the time.

Saving a watt is a good thing, unless one spends 5 watts to do it.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I agree that CO2 generally is not a pollutant, but when we dump abnormally large amounts of any substance, even perfectly natural and normally beneficial substances, into the local environment it can become a "pollutant".

I also agree that replacing current infrastructure is not the best way to increase effeciency. Such infrastructure should be replaced through attrition. As power lines become obsolete or can no longer be upgraded enough to meet current/future demands.

The intial costs of such a system are quite prohibitive. There would have to be a clear need for both the hydrogen and the power to be transported to the proposed location before such a proposal could be seriously considered.

The idea has both pros and cons and each need to be studied extensively before any descision were to be made. If there was a clear need for large amounts of hydrogen, then it certainly would make the case for possible superconducting electrical pipelines to be established. Without a need for the hydrogen, however, the costs of implementing such a plan could not be justified on its own.

There is no need for us to be penny wise and dollar foolish just because some shiny new technology comes along, but it does not hurt to brainstorm about such things.

Such radical changes to our energy infrastructure would have to be on the order of scores of years if not centuries. After all, our existing coal industry has taken 200 years to get where it is now, and the oil industry has taken 120 years to mature to its current state. Nuclear has only been around for about 60 years, but it merely plugged in to an already existing infrastructure, and is not very mobile (with the exception of large naval vessels).

Until we develop batteries that can be charged in minutes, last a decade or more without replacement (not on a single charge, but over the lifetime of charging and discharging), do not create a heat/fire hazzard if rapidly charged/discharged and can be fairly non-toxic, our best bet for clean, portable power remains with hydrogen. But that is all it is at the moment, a bet.

Oil is still king when it comes to portable power. It is relatively cheap, contains a great energy to weight/volume ratio, is relatively easy to transport and easy to convert into usable energy. Until hydrogen can compete with that, oil will remain king.

[edit on 15-3-2010 by BomSquad]

Thank you guys ! I'm glad I asked.

Reply to garritynet

Thanks !
I'll have to agree with TheRedneck. Your post did have an edge.

Anyway. Even if it was, it doesn't bother me. You answered my question.
What more could I wish for.

The reason Iasked is because I know there already are busses and cars and so on using hydrogen fuel. The technique has been around for years.

I was under the illusion it was ignored because of the oil industry.

I guess I was wrong

Don't stop on topic I learn something new almost every post.

So Thank you all !

reply to post by BomSquad

I agree that CO2 generally is not a pollutant, but when we dump abnormally large amounts of any substance, even perfectly natural and normally beneficial substances, into the local environment it can become a "pollutant".

I would agree if the production were high enough to create problems. In the case of CO2 levels at present, it is not. But really, that's a different debate. I just didn't want the reference to go unchallenged. That is how public misconception happens.

The idea has both pros and cons and each need to be studied extensively before any descision were to be made.

As is true with any new concept. I actually think it is wonderful that we can debate the merits of such ideas; often there is more advancement made in investigating ideas than in coming up with the idea itself.

There is no need for us to be penny wise and dollar foolish just because some shiny new technology comes along, but it does not hurt to brainstorm about such things.

Absolutely!

Oil is still king when it comes to portable power. It is relatively cheap, contains a great energy to weight/volume ratio, is relatively easy to transport and easy to convert into usable energy. Until hydrogen can compete with that, oil will remain king.

And really, that is only a problem because of the political problems surrounding oil and the pollutants (mainly sulfur) that natural oil contains. There is the concern of peak oil production being reached, but I personally find the concept of abiotic oil reasonable.

Oil itself is simply a hydrocarbon chain. What do you think about the possibility of creating oil from the carbon/hydrogen already present in compounds all around us? It would cause oil to become an energy medium like hydrogen rather than a source, but if it could somehow be manufactured chemically it could be created with no pollutants, causing cars to exhaust only water and CO2. After all, both elements exist in great abundance on earth.

TheRedneck


[edit on 3/15/2010 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by TheRedneck

What do you think about the possibility of creating oil from the carbon/hydrogen already present in compounds all around us?

The possibility is intriguing. I would think we would run in to most of the same problems we run into with the hydrogen argument. Too much energy needed to create the fuel. Although a pollution less (or at least a pollution reduced) fuel that could be distributed and used without major changes to existing infrastructure definitely has its advantages.
I do not know enough chemistry to deduce if we could make a compound as energy dense as our current fuels without the impurities that cause so much pollution.

I suspect that creating such a compound would be prohibitively expensive to mass produce in the quantities neccessary to supply our current demands. We would need to find a self sustaining/assembling reaction to create such a compound economically.

Think about it for a moment... It would be easier to scrub, sequesture or otherwise contain the CO2 (and other pollutants) produced at a single coal plant than it would to do the same for 10000 cars, trucks, ships, trains and planes moving about. Yet they amount of energy produced and used would be roughly equivalent. (I am using theoretical numbers off the top of my head, it is the idea I am trying to convey, not the engineering behind it.)

The only issue is that CCS does not work at this moment in time, and in the future when it does exist, it is projected to dramatically increase the price of energy, furthermore, the CCS process itself uses significant amounts of energy. Hydrogen production from conventional coal, however is still possible, but it defeats much of the purpose of moving to hydrogen, and also pollutes the environment significantly which makes it a political non-starter. Furthermore, when a carbon tax is added, other solutions will look far more competitive, such as other inherently clean sources of energy such as Nuclear.

Also, I don't think it necessarily matters how much energy elemental Hydrogen requires to produce. What matters more is the cost of the inputs. For example, Nuclear is extremely cheap compared to oil in electricity generation. If Nuclear is used (for example) to generate Hydrogen, even with some net energy loss, it could be (I haven't done the math) competitive and profitable simply by selling Hydrogen at a price significantly higher than Nuclear energy. Make sense?

The power losses right now in our power grid are large, but manageable.

Energy losses were about 7.5% in 1995. Not as high as some people believe.

[edit on 16/3/2010 by C0bzz]

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


I think most of your questions have been very adequately addressed by the above posters (particularly the likes of that grass chewin', dungaree wearin', pitchfork wieldin' moderator).

All I would add is that if Hydrogen becomes viable, I firmly believe the oil companies will be the first to invest in and develop it purely because they know that they have to start thinking about tomorrow and how to continue to make billions.

[edit on 16-3-2010 by OZtracized]

reply to post by C0bzz


I too prefer nuclear to coal because of its economy of scale in energy production. The only problems I have with nuclear power is the waste and its non-portability.

I would love to see all electric vehicles that would run off of batteries, but you severely limit the range of these vehicles when you do that do to the long recharge times. Fuelcell technology is becoming more mature, but without a ready source of hydrogen available to power them, they become less attractive as well.

Right now, nothing can economically compete with oil when it comes to transportation. Oil is messy, toxic and too contested in the geopolitical arena. Oil is dangerous due to its limited areas of production, creating bottlenecks and raising tensions. OPEC anyone?

Since hydrogen can be produced nearly everywhere on the planet, some of these political tensions would be relieved if we could transition to a hydrogen economy.

I do not believe hydrogen is they panacea to the worlds energy problems, but I do believe it is a better choice than some of the alternatives when it comes to portable energy production.

I agree that hydrogen production will have to be powered by more conventional power sources (coal, nuclear, LNG, etc). Hydrogen will not make these power sources obsolete, but would complement them.

Often, power stations reduce capacity at night during non-peak times. This can create inefficiencies since they are no longer running at optimial settings. Using the non-peak times of power production to power hydrogen production would allow these traditional power stations to remain at peak effeciency a greater amount of the time.

I think one of the biggest problems in todays power infrastructure is that the electricity produced must either be used immediately or it is lost. Creating the hydrogen allows us to use any excess power production in a productive manner.

There are still a lot of other things that would need to fall into place to make all this practical. We simply are not there yet, but we can see that it is at least possible.