It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Catalyst for Electrolysis Reduces Costs by 97% and Increases Hydrogen Production 400%

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
It is just not practical to have solar cells as your primary power source, as you would have a huge overcapacity for most part of the year.


There is a practical solution for the overcapacity:


You can compare hydrogen to a battery.


That is exactly where you put whatever energy that is not used from the solar cells. Overcapacity problem solved. Weather issues solved.

This doesn't mean total independence from the grid, but it is a step. We just need more affordable solar cells to really make this solution go.




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
For comparison:

Energy-Star:
Average Energy Bill for a typical Single Family Home: $2,200
Average Price of electricity per kilo-watt hour: 11.3 cents

D.O.E. FAQ:

In 2008, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 11,040 kWh, an average of 920 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per month. Tennessee had the highest annual consumption at 15,624 kWh and Maine the lowest at 6,252 kWh.


A cost of a (ready to install) solar panel kit: $8,550.00 -- Sunforce 123 Watt Solar Panel Kit (10x123w panels, Home Depot)

* Hydrogen generator unit and stationary power supply not included

[edit on 25-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


The capacity to store this energy would need to be immense. I don't see how either hydrogen or batteries could be suited for this, not at peoples home anyhow. Again, its not practical. Much more practical is to store the overproduction of energy in a central place.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 



"Where I live the longest day is 17 hours, and the shortest day 8 hours, again about halving the power production. And especially in the winter you are using most energy to keep your house warm and your lights on."

I understand the effects of the seasons and I also understand that we must change our lifestyles accordingly. This means discovering the long lost skill of living frugal and being in charge of our own life, not being dependent upon an outside power source. If the power went off tomorrow and didn't come back on, what would you do?
I never once said that solar energy would provide a massive amount of energy to run the average home. Think about it, what are the absolute necessities in your house (washer, dryer, "refrigerator" etc..) and how much juice would you need to maintain those items? Lights are easy, how many do you need on at once and are those bulbs LEDs? Maybe a skylight? How about a wood stove?


"Hydrogen is not a power source, it is a power carrier. We can't harvest hydrogen like we harvest oil, hydropower, sunlight, wind etc. You can compare hydrogen to a battery. When a battery is empty it needs to be recharged. You can also charge batteries using solar power. And you can also use batteries to power your car. So hydrogen and batteries are at the same level. They both won't solve any of our energy problems."

I don't buy that, any gas that is highly combustible is potentially a fuel in some form or another. If you can extract mechanical energy from the expansion (controlled explosion) of the ignited gas, then it's a fuel.
What do you mean hydrogen can't be harvested? Just present an electrical charge to numerous conductive plates, submerged in a water/electrolyte solution and wallah, you're producing an explosive gas that is highly volatile.
The basic form of HHO (Brown Gas) effectively extracts hydrogen from water then immediately introduces that gas to the intake charge? There is no need for storage or drying, it is simply burnt with the gasoline/diesel in the combustion chamber and it's exhaust is evident by the small puddle that starts forming below your tailpipe(s). The idea is to replace as much liquid fuel as possible with H2 while attempting to override any number of manufacturer engineered obstacles.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by UndergroundMilitia
I understand the effects of the seasons and I also understand that we must change our lifestyles accordingly. This means discovering the long lost skill of living frugal and being in charge of our own life, not being dependent upon an outside power source. If the power went off tomorrow and didn't come back on, what would you do?
I never once said that solar energy would provide a massive amount of energy to run the average home. Think about it, what are the absolute necessities in your house (washer, dryer, "refrigerator" etc..) and how much juice would you need to maintain those items? Lights are easy, how many do you need on at once and are those bulbs LEDs? Maybe a skylight? How about a wood stove?


This is essentially how they do it in many 3rd world countries. A solar cell and a battery. They have energy until the battery runs out. Anyway, it all has very little to do with hydrogen as energy carrier.



I don't buy that, any gas that is highly combustible is potentially a fuel in some form or another. If you can extract mechanical energy from the expansion (controlled explosion) of the ignited gas, then it's a fuel.
What do you mean hydrogen can't be harvested? Just present an electrical charge to numerous conductive plates, submerged in a water/electrolyte solution and wallah, you're producing an explosive gas that is highly volatile.
The basic form of HHO (Brown Gas) effectively extracts hydrogen from water then immediately introduces that gas to the intake charge? There is no need for storage or drying, it is simply burnt with the gasoline/diesel in the combustion chamber and it's exhaust is evident by the small puddle that starts forming below your tailpipe(s). The idea is to replace as much liquid fuel as possible with H2 while attempting to override any number of manufacturer engineered obstacles.


I will quote wikipedia, as they probably tell it better than I can:


Hydrogen is also being developed as an electrical power storage medium. Hydrogen is not a primary energy source, but a portable energy storage method, because it must first be manufactured by other energy sources in order to be used. However, as a storage medium, it may be a significant factor in using renewable energies. See hydrogen storage.


So it is a storage medium, just like a battery is. Of course you can also convert water to oxyhydrogen at the intake of a combustion engine by electrolysis, but it would be much more efficient to use an electric motor.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
The capacity to store this energy would need to be immense.


The ideal solution would be a solid state form that absorbs 25-50kgH2 per day that releases hydrogen on demand.

It is what we to figure out.











EDIT: Pardon me while I chew on my ice while we figure this out.

[edit on 25-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas
For home use? One example of a setup for home use would be to harvest hydrogen while there is sunlight in order to use it throughout the night. This can be called a hydrogen buffer.

Excess hydrogen could be converted to dry form, which then can be safely stored for longer purposes or transported.

You are still stuck on efficiency alone and left out other factors. Cost alone is about two times less than then steam-reformed petroleum. Double bang for the buck right there.


The best buffer or load leveler is a battery or ultra capacitor which charges and discharges without significant loss of energy, something that Hydrogen cannot do. Safely storing hydrogen in a gas bottle will not be easy for the average home owner and the compressor alone will make this a very expensive operation.
A 125 watt solar unit for $8500 means that running the hair dryer in real time will only require $85,000 investment in solar cells. If we estimate a capacity factor of about three, that number goes up to about $250k.

Cost is the factor that drives energy production and use and the cost will not be less than reformed methane, even with a 13% improvement in efficiency. Cost will be greater. The efficiency improvements do not magically change the process and the value of electricity will not change dependent on the final use.

The website in the OP was more of a misleading ad than anything else.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The best buffer or load leveler is a...


Please, see my previous message.


A 125 watt solar unit for $8500 means that running the hair dryer in real time will only require $85,000 investment in solar cells.


It's 10 solar panels for about $8500 (not $85,000), and the kit included the power grid unit. That's 1230 kW/h, which is within average capacity for a typical single family (see the facts I posted above).

[edit on 25-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


I misread your cost post.

I still don't see why you would want to store hydrogen instead of electrical power. The conversions would greatly reduce the power available and the capital costs would be very high for no gain but a major energy loss.

Note that nameplate power output is at optimum conditions and capacity usually has to be tripled to average out at the nameplate power.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
The conversions would greatly reduce the power available and the capital costs would be very high for no gain but a major energy loss.


That's still speculative by application, and we have gone over a few use-cases here already.

Remember to keep in mind: 1) zero-emission, 2) zero-emission, and 3) zero-emission

I don't expect a pure free energy system, but any movement towards such a system pays for itself, so capital costs are a moot point. Fuel Cells are said to be able to get up to 120% efficiency with Gibbs energy (see OP whitepaper). It's about being able to make affordable steps towards such a system that are significant.



[edit on 25-5-2010 by dzonatas]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dzonatas

Originally posted by pteridine
The conversions would greatly reduce the power available and the capital costs would be very high for no gain but a major energy loss.


That's still speculative by application, and we have gone over a few use-cases here already.

Remember to keep in mind: 1) zero-emission, 2) zero-emission, and 3) zero-emission

I don't expect a pure free energy system, but any movement towards such a system pays for itself, so capital costs are a moot point. Fuel Cells are said to be able to get up to 120% efficiency with Gibbs energy (see OP whitepaper). It's about being able to make affordable steps towards such a system that are significant.


Of course solar electricity is zero emission, zero emission, zero emission.

Solid oxide fuel cells emit water vapor and unburned hydrogen, one of the reasons that their efficiencies are limited. 120% efficiency means that those who did the calculations are trying to con someone.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Of course solar electricity is zero emission, zero emission, zero emission.


And, so are fuel cells in a closed system.


Solid oxide fuel cells emit water vapor and unburned hydrogen, one of the reasons that their efficiencies are limited.


This thread has nothing to do with SOFCs, it is about PEMs.


120% efficiency means that those who did the calculations are trying to con someone.


There is a theoretical efficiency of 83% based on a this reaction: H2 + 1/2(O2) -> H2O

That 83% efficiency doesn't account for other energies beyond electricity in the conversion. The obvious solution for higher efficiency is to exploit quantum mechanical effects, like photosynthesis which achieves nearly 100% efficiency. To simply chart 120% on the graph @ 'electrochemical lowest possible voltage' is not a con.

You need to backup you claims more.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by dzonatas
 


What happened to the 400% claim and half the cost of hydrogen from reforming? Those were definitely wrong.

Recovering sensible heat from a closed cycle fuel cell system adds yet more to the capital costs. There is no way to beat batteries as storage media for small systems.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


This is a losing proposition no matter how you look at it. Electricity is used to make hydrogen and 20% of the energy is lost. What will you do with the hydrogen? It would be better to use the electricity directly and not convert it into an energy carrier that is difficult to store and only provides 80% of the input energy.


You are correct but forget one big problom we can not run cables from our cars whilst driving around.

i would guess the efficency of converting electric to hydrogen is a lot less than 80% and closer to 40% but if you used the electric directly to charge batteries then it would be just as low, maybe lower.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:30 AM
link   
.....and the catalyst is........?????

Bet it is hard to find/expensive!



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by pteridine
Recovering sensible heat from a closed cycle fuel cell system adds yet more to the capital costs.


Do you mean residential fuel cell systems where the heat is not used? Germany passed a law where cogeneration systems are required, so there is no way to say it adds to the capital costs there.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by LieBuster

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by cupocoffee
 


This is a losing proposition no matter how you look at it. Electricity is used to make hydrogen and 20% of the energy is lost. What will you do with the hydrogen? It would be better to use the electricity directly and not convert it into an energy carrier that is difficult to store and only provides 80% of the input energy.


You are correct but forget one big problom we can not run cables from our cars whilst driving around.

i would guess the efficency of converting electric to hydrogen is a lot less than 80% and closer to 40% but if you used the electric directly to charge batteries then it would be just as low, maybe lower.



Recharging batteries or charging ultracapacitors is far more efficient than generating electrolytic hydrogen.
The residential user will not be making fuel. Large scale hydrogen production can use CO2 mined from the air to produce methanol which can be used as a fuel or readily converted to gasoline. This avoids the necessity and multi trillion dollar expense of converting the infrastructure to hydrogen distribution.



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
I get so mad at these threads..

Give me a Blueprint or link to one and we can have a go at it..
No?

Ok..

Ill just stay mad then...



posted on May, 26 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miccey
Give me a Blueprint or link to one and we can have a go at it..


Here is the design that has made it on the road:



Platinum was used as a catalyst. Platinum has been replaced by polymers to reduce cost. This thread shows another technique to apply on the polymer.

The trend now is to move away from that design to where the fuel cell acts as part of the battery unit. The fuel cell is reversible, so it satisfies rechargeability.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join