Thoughts on Hydrogen power

[MoParts]

They said the same for electric trucks and cars back in 1832.

That was 190 years ago. Maybe 190 years from now we will have pocket fusion reactors and none of this will matter. But right now, hydrogen is the least energy efficient way to power a car. 190 years ago and 190 years in the future are irrelevant.

 

[mrclean426]

I just attended a weights and measures conference in Golden Co. 2 of the guests were tesla and the university of Co. UofC was working on H2 fuel cell cars, here is what i got out of it.
1. H2 cars are electric, they use H2 fuel cells.
2. why H2 fuel cells rather than combustion? H2 fuel cells are almost 3 times more efficient than combustion.
3. Problem with H2 fueling has always been the time it took to fill an H2 tank. Modern tech now has that down to 2 to 3 mins (secret is to maintain very cold temp)
4. Ca. already has 18 H2 fueling stations in operation.
5. Toyota already has an H2 fuel cell electric car on the market.
6. last big hurdle with H2 fueling is the fact that at such cold temps the fuel connector at the tank tends to freeze up and get stuck on car.
I have always been a fan of hydrogen and believe it will be the next big fuel. The change won't be pushed until the battery powered electric car craze hits a wall. ie millions of dead lithium batteries with no where to go.

 

[attaboy]

In this state, it is simply a talking point by the existing government leaders so they can sound like they are doing SOMETHING about energy. Here it is noithing more than smoke and mirrors (or gas and mirrors). These folks don't have a clue!

 

[Marine Les]

There is not any science that proves the burning of fossil fuels is the major reason for the climate heating; it is all theory. Between 1050 and 1200 AD (before humans burned fossil fuels) the climate was warmer than today. Oil makes the most sense for now and we have plenty of time to change before it runs out. Besides, we do not produce near enough electricity for any of the current possible replacements.

 

[HK1837]

Hydrogen as a fuel is happening, it is just going to take some time for it to work on large scale in Industry replacing coal in industries like Steelmaking. Two new gas fired power stations are being designed and built in NSW (in Australia) now, and they are being designed to run on natural gas initially but are being designed to run on Hydrogen when it becomes more mainstream. The idea is these stations are there to supply power to the State when needed as coal fired power stations are being shut down over the next 10 years. At times we have so much renewable energy that it swamps the grid and coal fired stations have to shut right down which is not only uneconomical but it is not how they are designed to run, however gas can. The combination of renewables (wind and solar), storage (large batteries and pumped hydro) and hydrogen fired generation is the future here.

We also have home hydrogen fuel cell storage units available that can be used in the same way as solar storage batteries like a Tesla Powerwall, but aren't full of environmental unfriendly stuff like Lithium batteries are. They are about the size of a fridge and have a town water connection. All they do is use rooftop solar (or wind turbine) energy to convert water to oxygen and hydrogen. The oxygen is let go, and the hydrogen is stored in a metal hydride. Once the conversion process is finished and power from the unit is needed, it does the opposite and uses the hydrogen (and oxygen from the air) to create water and power. They are only about 50% efficient and right now are about the size of the fridge. But they work and are safe.

As for vehicles, I suspect in the end they will be like the home setup above, with hydrogen stored in a hydride fuel cell and they will generate electricity to drive electric motors. As technology progresses they will get better and smaller and gradually replace traditional batteries. Will be a while yet though, maybe 10 years.

 

[Marine Les]

Yes, hydrogen makes sense for the future when compared to other possible sources of fossil replacements. Future advances in technology may bypass hydrogen for something better and only time will tell. Meanwhile, we need to double our current level of electrical generation for production of hydrogen or battery charging and all of those require burning fossil fuels unless we get back into building many nuclear plants. Solar and wind is unreliable as well as prohibitive in cost to accomplish this increase. Burning natural gas is the most logical way forward but it is not considered acceptable, it is fossil. We are boxing ourselves into a corner because of the hysteria over the current climate warming. In the 60s and 70s the hysteria was about the looming ice age that would drive global populations to equatorial regions. Humanity seems to be in love with impending doom.

 

[HEMIMANN]

Question: where does the hydrogen come from? Is it free?

We need more nuclear generation of electricity. Safer reactor designs are available, not sure about uranium ore supplies, though.

Natural gas combustion is much lower CO2 output than long change hydrocarbons, we should be running on that until EV can or will take over.

 

[Marine Les]

Do you mean "free" as an element existing by itself in a free state? Then no it does not. Hydrogen is the most abundant matter comprising 3/4 of all matter in the universe. It is also the lightest of all matter. Because of it design it mingles with most matter. About half of all hydrogen (1H) is made from natural gas. There are many issues with using 1H as a fuel beginning with the energy needed to separate it from other molecules. It also embrittles metal in storage tanks making it prone to leaking that can easily cause fire and or explosions. Creating usable 1H is not free and is actually rather costly when compared to oil and natural gas.
Compressing natural gas for use in vehicles is relatively inexpensive and very easy to do. Two decades ago, the Salt Lake City area set up a natural gas system for refueling cars and trucks and they were paying about 25% less for fuel compared to gasoline or diesel. The USA has the largest natural gas reserves in the world making us the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. We will not switch to this clean burning fuel because the big oil corporations make very little profit on it and the current climate change hysteria would make the ant-fossil fuel crowd go nuts if we tried use it. Where we go from here is strictly in the realm of politics.

 

[HEMIMANN]

Do you mean "free" as an element existing by itself in a free state? Then no it does not. Hydrogen is the most abundant matter comprising 3/4 of all matter in the universe. It is also the lightest of all matter. Because of it design it mingles with most matter. About half of all hydrogen (1H) is made from natural gas. There are many issues with using 1H as a fuel beginning with the energy needed to separate it from other molecules. It also embrittles metal in storage tanks making it prone to leaking that can easily cause fire and or explosions. Creating usable 1H is not free and is actually rather costly when compared to oil and natural gas.
Compressing natural gas for use in vehicles is relatively inexpensive and very easy to do. Two decades ago, the Salt Lake City area set up a natural gas system for refueling cars and trucks and they were paying about 25% less for fuel compared to gasoline or diesel. The USA has the largest natural gas reserves in the world making us the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. We will not switch to this clean burning fuel because the big oil corporations make very little profit on it and the current climate change hysteria would make the ant-fossil fuel crowd go nuts if we tried use it. Where we go from here is strictly in the realm of politics.

Yes, of course. Otherwise it's not useful for oxidation, right? Unless the molecule in question is methane.

 

[BossHogg]

Takes huge amount of power to make hydrogen.

And the other side of the coin is hydrogen doesn't like to be stored not to mention its volatility.

 

[Wild one]

2M views · 22K reactions | Are Hydrogen engines the future? | Engineering Explained

Are Hydrogen engines the future?

www.facebook.com

 

[PoMansRam]

Just to give you guys some perspective on some of the costs it takes to produce H2. Our steam-methane reformer that extracts H2 out of natural gas uses about ~$25K worth of natural gas per day. This makes about ~160KCFH of gas H2, or ultimately, about 3 truck loads of cryogenic liquefied H2. Add the costs of electricity for all the blowers, pumps, compressors, etc. to run the plant, then the city water usage, which is huge. 1000's of gallons per day, I believe that's another $10K/day.

 

[ramffml]

Just to give you guys some perspective on some of the costs it takes to produce H2. Our steam-methane reformer that extracts H2 out of natural gas uses about ~$25K worth of natural gas per day. This makes about ~160KCF of gas H2, or ultimately, about 3 truck loads of cryogenic liquefied H2. Add the costs of electricity for all the blowers, pumps, compressors, etc. to run the plant, then the city water usage, which is huge. 1000's of gallons per day, I believe that's another $10K/day.

That's pricy! How much would it change though if production was much higher? Economies of scale etc? Batteries/Solar were much more expensive initialy too but come down as more and more people buy them and use them.

 

[chri5k]

The problem with electric and hydrogen is the infrastructure for refueling or recharging is simply not there right now. Electric is probably closer but ubiquitous charging stations and ones that can charge quickly are still 5 - 10 years out and the electricity needs come from somewhere. Ubiquitous hHydrogen stations are even further out.

The challenge is most families have an ICE vehicle and will continue to have one for at least the next 10+ years. These families don't have much slack in their budgets to absorb an additional $2K per year for gasoline. It is even more difficult for suburban and rural families that are car dependent and have greater distances to drive.

IMHO, there needs to be a coherent plan for transitioning from one energy source to another that people can easily understand. Not sure the "cold turkey" approach is going to work. Doesn't seem like a winning strategy politically to say "suck it up" or "people will figure it out".

 

[PoMansRam]

That's pricy! How much would it change though if production was much higher? Economies of scale etc? Batteries/Solar were much more expensive initialy too but come down as more and more people buy them and use them.

In terms of using steam-methane reforming, this particular technology has been around for probably 50yrs. You can buy a fully functional reformer from many vendors these days. Another thing I forgot to mention with these plants- at least the ones I'm familiar with. You need a source of inert gas in the even the plant shuts down or needs to be bottled up. Nitrogen gas is typically used. The specialized catalysts and molecular sieves cannot come in contact with air. Some go boom. Some give off toxic gasses if introduced to air.

As far as higher production / economy of scale, the more H2 you want to produce, the more raw materials you need (natural gas, water, electricity). I don't know of any volume discounts given on natural gas or water these days.

Electricity on the other hand is another situation. I know we draw upwards of 40 megawatts at my work with all of our processes and get the power cheaply by contract from the state owned/operated hydroelectric plant. You pay an agreed upon mil-rate for so many years provided you keep so many people employed. Going forward electrolysis makes the most sense for my company and will probably be the way we go in the future.

 

[HEMIMANN]

In terms of using steam-methane reforming, this particular technology has been around for probably 50yrs. You can buy a fully functional reformer from many vendors these days. Another thing I forgot to mention with these plants- at least the ones I'm familiar with. You need a source of inert gas in the even the plant shuts down or needs to be bottled up. Nitrogen gas is typically used. The specialized catalysts and molecular sieves cannot come in contact with air. Some go boom. Some give off toxic gasses if introduced to air.

As far as higher production / economy of scale, the more H2 you want to produce, the more raw materials you need (natural gas, water, electricity). I don't know of any volume discounts given on natural gas or water these days.

Electricity on the other hand is another situation. I know we draw upwards of 40 megawatts at my work with all of our processes and get the power cheaply by contract from the state owned/operated hydroelectric plant. You pay an agreed upon mil-rate for so many years provided you keep so many people employed. Going forward electrolysis makes the most sense for my company and will probably be the way we go in the future.

Is steam-methane reforming lower cost that electrolysis of water?

 

[PoMansRam]

Is steam-methane reforming lower cost that electrolysis of water?

It depends on cost and availability of electricity and natural gas for a specific area, but generally speaking, reformers will give you more bang for your buck.

 

[BWL]

I guess the upside for hydrogen is you don't have to upgrade the entire power grid to make it vs charging everybody's cars at home or at stations all over the place. Set up the plants close to where the power is generated. Also a good way to make use of off peak energy because the generator plants can't store excess so converting the excess to hydrogen provides a way to store that energy. This doesn't make sense for hydrocarbon generation so much as it can ramp up and down according to demand, but for hydroelectric, solar and wind it does.

 

[Marine Les]

Hydrogen or any of the other current alternatives to oil is decades into the future. By the time it takes to change over to hydrogen or anything else, I believe there will new technologies available that beat them all in cost.

 

[ramffml]

Hydrogen or any of the other current alternatives to oil is decades into the future. By the time it takes to change over to hydrogen or anything else, I believe there will new technologies available that beat them all in cost.

Not saying you're wrong, but why would the "new tech" be more viable than hydrogen which is already in the field and actively under development? I wouldn't be so certain that there is new tech on the horizon which is going to magically fix everything, I think all the obvious candidates are under development and it's going to take many years before we see any large improvements. My guess is that this is going to be a slow and steady advancement through decades, probably with electric (and hybrids) taking off the most.