hydrogen education

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I have a question that may bring some interesting answers. First off, the process of creating hydrogen takes electricity to produce. It is argued that since it takes electricity, then it's using fossil fuels to create and therefore negating the positive effects of an emission free fuel. Plus the cost of obtaining the hydrogen in the first place. So this begs the question, why not use solar power to produce the hydrogen? A large array of panels in the desert could easily produce enough electricity to make the hydrogen, then it could be a continuous operation of hydrogen production, trucking in and out new tanks to fill. And while we are converting to a hydrogen environment, we could be spending some of the money we use to "liberate" other countries (who happen to have lots of oil) on developing a more efficient way to produce hydrogen fuel. Perhaps some of the people who spend inordinate amounts of energy opposing hydrogen, could put some of that effort into making it work.




posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
I have a question that may bring some interesting answers. First off, the process of creating hydrogen takes electricity to produce. It is argued that since it takes electricity, then it's using fossil fuels to create and therefore negating the positive effects of an emission free fuel. Plus the cost of obtaining the hydrogen in the first place. So this begs the question, why not use solar power to produce the hydrogen? A large array of panels in the desert could easily produce enough electricity to make the hydrogen, then it could be a continuous operation of hydrogen production, trucking in and out new tanks to fill. And while we are converting to a hydrogen environment, we could be spending some of the money we use to "liberate" other countries (who happen to have lots of oil) on developing a more efficient way to produce hydrogen fuel. Perhaps some of the people who spend inordinate amounts of energy opposing hydrogen, could put some of that effort into making it work.


I've often wondered about a hybrid solar/hydrogen car. A solar array on top to break the molecular bond, and presto!



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Thats not the problem though, the problem is that (from my understanding) it takes more energy to split the hydrogen from the salt water than the energy produced by splitting the hydrogen from the water. Yes using solar power is a renewable way to produce the power, but it will take more solar power in than the power out, making it pointless



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I was actually thinking about posting a thread about this the other day.

While it doesn't seem applicable for cars, given that periods without sun would limit how far and when you could drive, I thought of other applications. And obvious energy loss from hydrolysis...

From what I remember solar is not feasible in the desert and many other areas because the electrical load has to be carried and too much heat is built up, and too much energy is lost during the long distance transfer.

So my idea, was take a diverted water source (a la Hoover Dam-Las Vegas) and bring water to a desert area to be transferred to hydrogen. Run the solar panels in the desert, convert to Hydrogen through electrolysis, transfer and store the hydrogen to use as energy.

No major problems in the transfer. No major energy loss, no having to cool the power lines. No super expensive cables that have to be erected for thousands of miles.

Of course, off the top of my head there is possible drawbacks.

Is it feasible to divert water in a large quantity?
Trucking or rail transfer of the Hydrogen containers?
Loss of energy through electrolysis conversion (but is it that bad? Can't be more than loss of long distance load transfer)

My $0.02

edit on 5-4-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcsteve
Thats not the problem though, the problem is that (from my understanding) it takes more energy to split the hydrogen from the salt water than the energy produced by splitting the hydrogen from the water. Yes using solar power is a renewable way to produce the power, but it will take more solar power in than the power out, making it pointless


That doesn't apply to some desert regions where it is virtually impossible to utilize solar because of long distance load transfer.

Although, yes, you are right in that if you built the panels directly where they could be used you would produce more energy because you wouldn't suffer the loss created through hydrolysis.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcsteve
Thats not the problem though, the problem is that (from my understanding) it takes more energy to split the hydrogen from the salt water than the energy produced by splitting the hydrogen from the water. Yes using solar power is a renewable way to produce the power, but it will take more solar power in than the power out, making it pointless


You are absolutely right. Using solar or anything else to produce hydrogen is just inserting a middleman, who takes a piece of the energy pie. You have to pump in energy to break the O-H bonds, either by electrolysis or by natural dissociation using heat (about 2500 degrees).



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho

Originally posted by mcsteve
Thats not the problem though, the problem is that (from my understanding) it takes more energy to split the hydrogen from the salt water than the energy produced by splitting the hydrogen from the water. Yes using solar power is a renewable way to produce the power, but it will take more solar power in than the power out, making it pointless


That doesn't apply to some desert regions where it is virtually impossible to utilize solar because of long distance load transfer.

Although, yes, you are right in that if you built the panels directly where they could be used you would produce more energy because you wouldn't suffer the loss created through hydrolysis.


Sorry i'm (as you can probably see) new to this... Not sure what you mean by the not applying in some desert regions? The point is that it takes more energy to brake the bonds (extract the hydrogen) than the energy produced... Not being argumentative or anything, just curious as to what you mean?



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
edit on 5-4-2011 by mcsteve because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
... First off, the process of creating hydrogen takes electricity to produce. It is argued that since it takes electricity,... .


Just to throw it out there, H can also be produced chemically.

Simple as a aluminum can/foil and some drain opener(lye). Although you get other byproducts, maybe those byproducts could be utilized somehow.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


That is a very good idea, and we all wish it were happening right now. But sadly we have Big Oil, and Big Oil is very powerful, and ruthless. They even lobbied for Federal Law to prevent you from modifying or enhancing your engine for better fuel mileage, or burning any alternative fuels. I myself have modified my engine and fuel to obtain better mileage and more available power, with some success, but to run on pure Hydrogen is a dream I think we would all like to have come true.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
I have a question that may bring some interesting answers. First off, the process of creating hydrogen takes electricity to produce. It is argued that since it takes electricity, then it's using fossil fuels to create and therefore negating the positive effects of an emission free fuel. Plus the cost of obtaining the hydrogen in the first place. So this begs the question, why not use solar power to produce the hydrogen? A large array of panels in the desert could easily produce enough electricity to make the hydrogen, then it could be a continuous operation of hydrogen production, trucking in and out new tanks to fill. And while we are converting to a hydrogen environment, we could be spending some of the money we use to "liberate" other countries (who happen to have lots of oil) on developing a more efficient way to produce hydrogen fuel. Perhaps some of the people who spend inordinate amounts of energy opposing hydrogen, could put some of that effort into making it work.


As far as I'm aware, the main problem is storage. It's a very volatile gas, it's just DYING to get together with oxygen to make water, which resultsin an exothermic reaction.... bang.... big bang. Now this isn't that much of a problem at atmospheric pressure or close to it(even the hindenburg had many hours of incident-free flying before catastrophe struck) but compressed hydrogen it a massacre waiting to happen! So producing vast quantities of hydrogen means you've gotta have somewhere to put it.... right? Whether at the plant in a massive pressurised death-tank, or in the car, the safety issues are just massive! Couple this with it's low atomic weight, it can leak through the smallest gaps. So the drive has been to take out the danger by storing water, and only splitting it into hydrogen and oxygen just before it's used, unfortunately main-stream science says this will always lose energy in the process and be a completely useless waste of time, however, I hope there is eventually an energy efficient way to do this, but at the moment, the laws of physics and chemistry forbid it!



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by geo1066

Originally posted by network dude
... First off, the process of creating hydrogen takes electricity to produce. It is argued that since it takes electricity,... .


Just to throw it out there, H can also be produced chemically.

Simple as a aluminum can/foil and some drain opener(lye). Although you get other byproducts, maybe those byproducts could be utilized somehow.


Still.... show me an endless supply of aluminium and drain opener........... exactly.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:23 AM
link   
One of the big roadblocks to building solar power plants in the desert are protesters.

Environmental activists criticize federal review of large-scale desert solar


Solar Done Right is a group of public land activists from California and Nevada. They love the desert for its ecological value – and they’re skeptical of federal and state plans to put large projects in Western deserts.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I can see where the concept is almost valid, who cares how much is lost from an array thats only purpose is to make trasportable fuel.

I'm thinking currently the solar panals are still not powerfull enough to size ratio to make cars practical...so this is an option.

Propane cars were poular for awhile.....CDND used them for a time....must have not been expensive enough eh? and what 1/4 the price.

It would be nice if they could refine the hydrogen generation process to a very fast process with a large outflow...then the need for a large containment vessel would disapear...although energy required to start would be considerably more.


Peace



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by movetovanuatu
 


Landfills?

I was just throwing it out there to open up the thought process to other ways of producing H with the possibility of also adding solar to the process.



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by mcsteve
 


My apologies. Of course you will always have 10-30% energy loss when converting water to hydrogen. The most efficient methods use catalysts which in themselves have energy reserves. So what you are saying is absolutely sound. For my idea lets consider that we get a 70% return of energy through solar capture and Hydrogen conversion.

What I was trying to point out is that large scale solar arrays are not possible in large populated areas, and also inefficient due to smog and weather factors.

Given that, the desert is capable of providing more sun to be harvested. So while you will still lose energy in the conversion process, the benefits of having a solar array in the desert could outweigh the energy lost in other solar capture methods. So while you are losing energy in the conversion process, you have more overall energy produced from your array.

So if solar capture in cities produces on average 8 hours of light per day while desert conditions produce on average 12, you can see how the 30% is variable that can be unimportant when considering other factors.

Then of course there is the benefit of transferring a gas (although the safest storage utilizes hydrides I believe...) instead of electricity via cable. The latter causes mass energy loss and heat production. The amount of metal that goes into making the lines is cost prohibitive.


Hope this clears it up.

Note: This is all speculative, and the numbers are off the top of my head (drawing on my reading into solar energy). If anyone wants to clarify my position or point out some of the things I've listed with facts, feel free to do so.

edit on 5-4-2011 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


It's not about going about doing it, it's about keeping "the big dawgs! (elites) in power and rich! It's a vicious circle I'm afraid! :/

Jamie



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by pandapowerjamie
 


Strange because I have evidence the big dogs are working on Hydrogen fuel technology. What a waste of money right?

If you read This PDF you can see that they are testing stations that use electrolysis to produce H2 which is then used for refueling cars using the Hydrogen fuel cells.


I particularly like the following one:


VTA has the ability to store H2 in liquid form for efficient storage and convert the liquid to H2 gas to fuel the buses. Storage-6 ASME steel tubes, 6668 psi and 9000 gallon liquid supply tank. Can fuel 3 buses/day. H2 delivered by APCI


Many of them are doing electrolysis onsite, this one has its gas delivered.

It doesn't say (from what I can see), where they are getting their energy from for the hydrolysis. But, be it by natural fuel production, they are losing energy more than one time in the process.

Which means, from my perspective, my desert solar-array hydrogen production isn't that crazy of an idea.




posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Ok. I see what you're saying now. Thanks for clearing that up



posted on Apr, 5 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
thanks for all the great ideas.

I have the idea that any spot of dirt in the sun without a solar panel is a missed opportunity for energy that already exists. Not that I want the entire desert covered, but to have a vast plane of sand doing nothing but reflecting free energy that could be used otherwise seems wasteful. And that would eliminate the biggest road block in using hydrogen as a fuel. I would think that tanks being filled and moved to filling stations would be a perfect way to distribute the fuel, just as gas is delivered now. There are a bunch of hydrogen stations in CA to fuel the small amount of hydrogen cars that exist. My thinking is that if the public could use a zero emission fuel that was less or the same cost as what we use now, everyone would switch without any pissing or moaning. It's a no loose situation. The only blockade seems to be a moratorium on discussing this with people who make decisions.
Here is an aritcle to look at.





new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join