Hydrogen isn't a terrible fuel, it just isn't a fuel.
Why is oil price dropping?
- Thread starter Saint
- Start date
It's as much a fuel as ethanol is.
Hydrogen is renewable ONLY if made by electrolysis of water, but that takes more energy than is stored in the hydrogen produced. (Production process is not 100% efficient by a long shot especially if as is the case in the US most of the electric energy used to produce hydrogen was converted from other fossil fuels with at best 45% conversion efficiency.)
Also H2 is high in energy density only when you ignore the thick walled steel tank (or the mass of heavy metal hydride absorption storage alternative). Don't even mention cryogenic storages - huge energy requirements only NASA can afford.
SUMMARY: H2 is an energy losing, means to transport energy - not really a "fuel" as that term is normally used for net energy release substance, not net energy sinks like hydrogen.
BTW Alcohol from sugar cane is a slightly "CO2 negative" clean burning renewable fuel yielding slightly more HP with nearly 10 times greater energy release than the energy required to produce it (slightly more than 10 times is no fertilized is used, but that is not as economical, so some is normally used - About every fourth or fifth year normally soy is produced in the same field to restore available nitrogen). It is cheaper than most petroleum source's gasoline per mile driven, but a tank full will only go 70% as far before the next filling. There is enough abandoned pasture to fuel all the world's cars still needing liquid fuel 10 years from now. Thus switching to sugar cane alcohol and electric cars would increase the production of food.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr Symes: "What we have developed is a system for producing hydrogen on an industrial scale much more cheaply and safely than is currently possible. Currently much of the industrial production of hydrogen relies on reformation of fossil fuels, but if the electricity is provided via solar, wind or wave sources we can create an almost totally clean source of power.
"The ECPB is made from commercially-available phosphomolyb-dic acid. The properties of this material allow us to collect and store the protons and electrons which are generated when we oxidise water, to give oxygen as the only gaseous product. We can then use those stored protons and electrons to produce only hydrogen at a time of our choosing, allowing us to produce pure hydrogen gas on demand with none of the difficulties of the current electrolytic process where the two are unavoidably produced at the same time.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...14GQDA&usg=AFQjCNHftXAbt4Wz1eerJEAibi32g_NP_w
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-blueprint-cheap-hydrogen-production.html#jCp
Continuous photosynthetic production of hydrogen by Rhodospirillum rubrum in batch cultures was observed up to 80 days with the hydrogen donor, pure lactate or lactic acid-containing wastes, supplied periodically. Hydrogen was produced at an average rate of 6 ml/h per g (dry weight) of cells with whey as a hydrogen donor. In continuous cultures with glutamate as a growth-limiting nitrogen source and lactate as a hydrogen donor, hydrogen was evolved at a rate of 20 ml/h per g (dry weight). The composition of the gas evolved remained practically constant (70 to 75% H2, 25 to 30% CO2). Photosynthetic bacteria processing specific organic wastes could be an advantage in large-scale production of hydrogen together with food protein of high value, compared to other biological systems.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...hoKABg&usg=AFQjCNEtG8Yy0NLiuX0EP7CejaDlkTOh1Q
Monumental breakthroughs in renewable energy research are happening at Virginia Tech. Scientist Y.H. Percival Zhang and his team have discovered a way to cheaply produce mass quantities of hydrogen using only xylose, a simple sugar abundant in plants. The process has potential to mass produce hydrogen fuel in an economical and environmentally friendly for the first time. Conventional methods of producing hydrogen use natural gas and release a great deal of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Zhang’s process has the potential to change that. “This new environmentally friendly method of producing hydrogen utilizes renewable natural resources, releases almost no greenhouse gasses, and does not require costly or heavy metals,” reports Virginia Tech.
The process is best summarized as the release of pure hydrogen by combining xylose and a mix of enzymes (all produced by the E. coli bacterium) developed by Zhang’s team. The enzymes react and release large amounts of high purity hydrogen from the sugar. The high hydrogen yield is the result of the xylose splitting water molecules inside the plant. Any source of biomass can be used for this process, Virginia Tech reports.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...14GQDA&usg=AFQjCNF2HeYvvzqFiEehwZO6oEjNfz-v2g
So here are three other ways to produce hydrogen , cheaply, abundantly and green.
Hydrogen As A Clean .....Fuel
When hydrogen burns in air, it produces nothing but water vapor. It is therefore the cleanest possible, totally nonpolluting fuel. This fact has led some people to propose an energy economy based entirely on hydrogen, in which hydrogen would replace gasoline, oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power. The idea is that hydrogen would be prepared by theelectrolysis of sea water in remote coastal areas and sent to the cities in pipelines similar to the pipeline that brings natural gas from Alaska to the lower states. In addition to being used as a fuel, the hydrogen could be used in factories to produce a variety of useful chemicals.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...pYCQCg&usg=AFQjCNFBYy4bfyEtgvYRZD8VUJihvuBH7A
If you have the electricity available, it is much cheaper to send it via powerlines to cities than converting it to hydrogen and sending it via pipelines. And it is much more efficiently used as electricity - for transportation, home heating, industrial power etc.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
We've got to put the fuel in. We've got to put the fuel in.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Keep looking for something for nothing. Keep looking for something for nothing.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
We can achieve nothing. We can achieve nothing.
Enrich yourself, by deluding others.
It may take some time.
Start today, thank you.
Wake up and live. Stop thinking. Stop thinking.
Ask, and it shall be given you.
Enrich yourself, by deluding others.
It may take some time.
Start today, thank you.
Wake up and live. Stop thinking. Stop thinking.
Ask, and it shall be given you.
No it isn't. Ethanol's energy comes from the sun and converting it from corn to ethanol is a net positive energy proposition (you get energy by using ethanol). Making hydrogen is a net negative proposition (you consume energy by using hydrogen). The reality is that hydrogen is nothing more than a very bad battery. I don't think it makes any sense at all to try to utilize it.
Not that I'm a fan of ethanol -- I'm not. In the US in particular, the net energy output is a dismal 1.34:1 (1 unit of input energy yields 1.34 units of output).
Last edited:
Here's the problem: all you're really doing is using electricity to create hydrogen. But if you're going to vastly increase renewable electricity production and you want the best environmental benefit, you will not use it to make hydrogen, you will use it to displace coal. Moreover, it makes no economic sense to make hydrogen during the day when electricity is scarce and expensive instead of at night when it is abundant and cheap. It means you have to build more power plants for no reason and pay more money for the electricity for no reason.
The two sides of the issue are completely de-coupled from each other and it is a fallacy -- practically a hoax -- for "environmentalists" to try to combine them.
As above: that's a total crock. A lie. Converting cars to hydrogen -- unless we first and unrelated-ly replace 80% of our electric power production -- means increasing electricity generation from gas, coal and nuclear power.
And I'll set aside for now the 'nuclear=bad' hoax.
Last edited:
Monumental breakthroughs in renewable energy research are happening at Virginia Tech. Scientist Y.H. Percival Zhang and his team have discovered a way to cheaply produce mass quantities of hydrogen using only xylose, a simple sugar abundant in plants. The process has potential to mass produce hydrogen fuel in an economical and environmentally friendly for the first time. Conventional methods of producing hydrogen use natural gas and release a great deal of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Zhang’s process has the potential to change that. “This new environmentally friendly method of producing hydrogen utilizes renewable natural resources, releases almost no greenhouse gasses, and does not require costly or heavy metals,” reports Virginia Tech.
The process is best summarized as the release of pure hydrogen by combining xylose and a mix of enzymes (all produced by the E. coli bacterium) developed by Zhang’s team. The enzymes react and release large amounts of high purity hydrogen from the sugar. The high hydrogen yield is the result of the xylose splitting water molecules inside the plant. Any source of biomass can be used for this process, Virginia Tech reports.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...14GQDA&usg=AFQjCNF2HeYvvzqFiEehwZO6oEjNfz-v2g
That is potentially a net positive energy proposition. Though it isn't quite right to say "for the first time". You can also make hydrogen from any fossil fuel, and this is essentially the same process. So that doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. Hydrogen from plants is still a hydrocarbon. A sythetic fossil fuel. The primary waste component of the process is carbon dioxide, just like with oil. Though I suppose if it becomes a cycle it can be considered net zero carbon dioxide.
And using solar-generated electricity to split water to get hydrogen is also a net positive proposition. You get energy by using hydrogen in that manner.
Note that in both the solar->hydrogen cases and the solar->ethanol cases you lose energy at points in the process. To make ethanol you have to grow a sugar-rich plant, ferment the sugars then extract the ethanol; this requires energy, and you end up with far less energy than you started with. To make hydrogen you have to electrolyze water and that process loses energy as well. Still, both are fuels.
I agree that it is not a very practical fuel, and will not be practical until we have high temperature gas reactors that can do thermal dissociation on a large scale.
The problem with that argument is that the two pieces are completely separate processes, with no required connection. The exact same argument can be made for a rechargeable battery being a fuel -- and a much better one than hydrogen! If I use coal power to charge a battery, can I call the battery, a "clean fuel"? After all, a hydrogen fuel cell produces water vapor, which is a strong greenhouse gas whereas a battery is 100% emisssion free!
Again: net energy of one is positive and the other is negative. Saying you "lose energy" in some steps in the process is utterly meaningless because ultimately every method for generating energy "loses energy" somewhere. What matters is if you have anything left when you are done -- and with hydrogen you don't.
As with above: utilizing any energy source requires using energy to get energy. Further:
Again: with one process, after you subtract the output from the input, you get get energy out and with the other, you don't. One process gives you energy and the other takes it away.
Well, using methane as a fuel in order to generate hydrogen to store the energy the methane created isn't a terrible idea (it's a whole lot more efficient than using the methane to make electricity to run a fuel cell), but I don't see a whole lot of added value to it versus, say, a battery, particularly because the efficiency of hydrogen energy storage is so low. And, of course, there are fuel cells that can use the methane directly, so it is an extra/unnecessary step to convert it to hydrogen first (assuming the technology is mature, though I'm not sure it is -- all of this is hypothetical anyway).
Last edited:
No it isn't. They did an experiment, that's all.
I agree. And if a battery could be recharged by adding a substance (as is the case in a flow battery or an aluminum-air battery) then that substance would be a fuel.
Woah, "cleanliness" is a big topic and completely separate issue. So no, you could not call it a "clean fuel" because it isn't. But if you added material to the battery to replenish it, then that material would be a fuel. All fuel is is a transferable substance you store potential energy in.
Incorrect. Both take sunlight and water and turn them into fuel, and both are net energy negative. The processes are quite different, of course - but in neither case do you get "free energy."
Also true with ethanol. If you take away sunlight you get no energy output from either process. Fortunately sunlight is free, which is why both methods can work, even though both have a net negative energy gain.
You are quite simply wrong. Both result in a fuel with far less energy than was contained in the sunlight required to produce it.
Last edited:
Agreed -- but that has nothing to do with your claim that hydrogen is a fuel, so it isn't relevant here.
That was cosmictraveler's claim, not mine.
Agree (and you are arguing against your point!), but moot because we're not discussing a situation where we "add material" to a battery. I have owned the laptop I'm writing this post on for 4 years and have yet to "add material" to the battery.
In this context, no, that's not what is meant by "fuel". A fuel is a source of energy, not a carrier for energy. That distinction is the entire point of this discussion and the entire reason why the so-called "hydrogen economy" is just technobabble science fiction. Regardless of what label you want to call it by, the point is that it doesn't do anything useful for us. It doesn't replace any energy sources (coal, nuclear, natural gas) and it doesn't solve any problems.
No. This is really starting to look like trolling: You aren't this dumb. Why can't you admit a simple, relatively small mistake/misunderstanding?
The difference here is that we don't make the "solar panel" that creates the corn. The "fuel" in the case of ethanol is the corn, not the sun. I'm quite certain you recognize the difference between a solar panel and a combine. The processes are:
Sunlight->electricity
or:
Corn->distillery->electricity
or:
Sunlight->electricity->hydrogen->electricty
or:
Corn->distillery->electricity->hydrogen->electricity
The electricity->hydrogen->electricity steps are clearly redundant: you're just converting electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity, which hasn't done anything useful for you and it wastes energy in the conversions. Anyway, here's a source for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
As I said: Ethanol from corn is 1.34:1 (or 1.34 - 1 = 0.34). A net positive.
Trolling. I never used the term "free energy" and you are trying to reference perpetual motion by using the term. But renewable energy is free to us because we don't pay for the fuel. Anyway, that's a new subject and a new error you didn't need to make to try to defend your previous error.
Yes/right, that's what I said: your error (of false equivalency), not mine.
[edit] Actually, maybe I misunderstood: perhaps you are saying you aren't left with a net positive usable energy with ethanol. Not true. You are left with usable energy in a ratio of 1.34:1 input to output (net +0.34). With hydrogen it is roughly .25:1 (net -0.75).
Still hasn't become right. You're just resetting back to the first line of this post and calling a battery a fuel. It hasn't become less wrong by trying to obfuscate it.
No. Again, hydrogen isn't produced from sunlight, it is produced from electricity and ethanol isn't produced from sunlight, it is produced from corn. In neither case is the collection of sunlight by people even required. As I said, even if hydrogen as a storage medium were better than a battery, solar power wouln't be the logical source: nuclear power would.
Last edited:
