Improved Hydrogen Technology

...hydrogen gas can produce one liter of water...

Honestly: Why produce any amount of water from hydrogen?

By Electrolysis I can only guess you meant to produce hydrogen from water http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolysis not the other way around.

Now, Hydrolysis, that is another story altogether...

So, OK, reversed q. is logical.

How many H2 liters (liquid under ....kPa or psi pressure) from one liter of H2O at atmospheric pressure?

How many J of energy is needed? Or kWh?

I Shouldn't mole this for you. Calculate H2O formally. I thought this is for advice in technology.

Is anybody who understand your message/idea?

By the way how much is for water and gasoline in Israel? Comparing them per liter or gallon.

...Is anybody who understand your message/idea?...

Mole, as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_%28unit%29

Do you expect people here do to your calculations for you?

...how much is for water and gasoline...

For water it's 98 cent for 1000 litre, and for gas it's 131 cents for 1 litre (we use Metrics here).

I don't think the technology is relevant - there is only so much Hydrogen in a liter of water - no technology is going to wring out any more as electolysis splits all of the hydrogen from all of the oxygen.

As for cost, that's where the technology could use a boost - right now, the electricty used to electrolyze the water cost more to generate than the hydrogen will return. The usual way to make bulk Hydrogen involves hydrocarbons, so there isn't any green advantage there.

Some scientists have been recently working on some solar cells that hydrolyze water run through the cells instead of generating electricty - I think there may be some promise to this technology but it has a long way to go. Whenever dealing with solar, you will always get more return on your dollar by heating the water and making it do work than you ever will trying to make electricty.

Finally wise remarks.

In USA there is the Hydrogen Project

_ And at least one residential installation. If I remember described in CR4 as built in NJ for $500 000. It is not encouraging because of so long ROI.

_ And electrolyzer kits for hybrid cars

_ And questions about economical effectiveness

...to electrolyze the water cost more to generate than the hydrogen will return...

So, why on earth, waste this invested energy, into recombining the gases? Is there shortage of water compared to the abundance of hydrogen?

I can't see the practical issue here. Please explain.

Your method of hydrogen production will depend on the application, basically, how much do you need...Typical electrolysis cost is 60kwh/kg...

SolarEagle

Thanks.

Now, the question is how many kWh we may have from 1 kg of H2.

The hope our Sun will deliver adequate number of kWh in short enough time and PV panels will cost less then 15% of present prices.

1kg/h2=114,400btu/3413btu/kw=33.5

the equation only works if your energy supply cost is low enough to show a gain, economically speaking...This would limit your energy supply to wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear, waste-to-energy or some other low cost supply...

Correct if I am wrong:

1 kg of H2 (hydrogen) produces 33.5 kWh, right? By burning/explosion as in car engine? To produce 1 kg of H2 we need 60 kWh energy

(33.5/60) * 100 = 56% effective.

If this is true, hydrogen could be only a storage for the energy as el-battery is.

Maybe more easy it is in power applications of the energy conversion than gas tanks. Anyway H2 has very low flash point i.e. easy to explode. Same protection required which is present at gas/petroleum stations.

I believe this is accurate. There is no point from an energy standpoint to produce hydrogen from water just to combust it for environmental reasons. Thr whole reason why a more environmentally friendly system hasnt already arisen is cost. The cost for conversion of water to hydrogen is with subsequent combustion is more than the cost of other energy sources.

If one can either get a small portable low cost energy source (nuclear?)and use the energy to produce hydrogen by electrolysis, then a green economy will arise of its own accord. Not until, since we still live in a world where overall costs drive the market.

Electrolysis is by no means the most efficient method of producing hydrogen from water...Thermal cracking is....With a nuclear reactor you can use the heat to directly crack the molecule...The efficiency is greatly increased because there is no conversion to electricity first...In fact, thermal cracking of water molecules via nuclear reactor may prove to be more efficient at producing energy then generating electricity via steam turbine...

SolarEagle

Thernal cracking may be more efficient at produceing hydrogen from water, but how many of the experimentors that are makeing hydrogen and useing it effectivly actually have nuclear reacters in their garages? What is needed is more people experimenting to find the best means of produceing a fuel(not fossil) to power our transportation. What I have seen here are the naysayers trying to shoot down the people that are tring to do something productive. My advise to the engineering types is to lead,follow or get the hell out of the way. Quit telling everyone it can't be done,because it is already being done. Jump on the band wagon and help streamline crude processes to make them work better, instead of being so dammed negative.

I'll get down off my soap box now till next time yall need a good swift kick in the concience

TO GUESS # 25 .... NOT BAD REMARKS ... CHECK THE REPLY # 27 ...

HT

hey SolarEagle ,

Thank you , for this very good observation and fact , we are working on something like this..... we will have a prototype to show very soon ...! ..if you compare apple for apple this prototype can produce about 15 to20 times the QUANTITY of

h2 . using the same kwh energy as the average reactor !

ps : SolarEagle don't waiste your time trying to figure out the price of water in Israel.. I am not sure if they know what to do with it ??? .

...low cost energy source (nuclear?)and use the energy to produce hydrogen by electrolysis, then a green economy will arise ...

Right, but than there is the enormous investment in maintaining liquefied hydrogen fuel (cooling), for practicality and safety reasons.

Benz prototyped it in Europe in 1998, with the additional energy cost of seven kilowatts, for maintaining the volume of a standard size fuel tank. It is not that easy to maintain.

Hydrogen most probably will be utilized as a greenhouse gas mitigator and hydrocarbon pump...Biomass fast pyrolysis or gasification, or a combination of the two, produce as an unwanted byproduct CO and CO2, these can then be turned into hydrocarbons with hydrogen gas added into process....This results in a three fold increase in liquid fuel quantity from the same amount of biomass....This also raises the btu quantity per gallon to present fuel usage standards....

SolarEagle

Am I a lone fool here?

HOW ABOUT REDUCING CONSUMPTION?

No-no, Sir!! - For this, you'd have to control the Earth's population growth.

RIGHT!

The only reduction in consumption will be through improved efficiency...Whether improving the efficiency will ever overtake the growth in energy demand is not likely in the foreseeable future..

...through improved efficiency...

Right.

...The only reduction...

I wouldn't be that definitive...

...ever overtake the growth...

CONTROL THE GROWTH. China does. Are we to be taken as less responsible?

- In "we" I do not exclusively mean the US, but the rest of the world.

Population control is not necessary elsewhere...The population models show a peak in population worldwide in 20 to 30 years then a gradual decline...

...show a peak in population worldwide in 20 to 30 years then a gradual decline...

What you just described here, is nothing short of a nightmare

First you want to control population growth, then when I tell you it's not necessary, you say it's a nightmare? It's as if I granted your fondest wish ,,and you are horrified at the results....Are you sure you know what it is you want??..The population has already started to decline in parts of Europe, but there are still areas of rapid growth, India for one.... The decline is multifaceted in cause, modern birth control methods, pollution plays a large part, men are becoming sterile, and women are becoming infertile, but don't despair, the population as a whole, is still growing....

...when I tell you it's not necessary, you say it's a nightmare...

Because you say the decline start is some twenty to thirty years ahead, while I cannot confirm with you, the current growth rate.

Besides, we already have global shortages of manageable agricultural areas in wealthy and developing countries, shortages of energy sources, and shortages of ecologically-minded industrialists and politicians.

What a lovely prospect.

...Are you sure you know what it is you want??...decline is multifaceted in cause, modern birth control methods, pollution plays a large part...but don't despair, the population as a whole, is still growing....

You said it. Not I.

Check the transcript of Al Gore's presentation in US Congress done in last week.

Am I a lone fool here?

Certainly not! I too am a fool.

Thanks, man

All of what you've said here is correct: H2 is not a fuel so much as an energy storage possibility -- and one loaded with difficulties. To produce hydrogen via electrolysis from the grid would be almost the worst of all possible worlds, compounding all the inefficiencies of generating and distributing electricity with the additional inefficiencies of generating the H2, only to have to then deal with the storage issues.

On the other hand, if wind power were used to supply the electrolyzing current, at least the environmental impact would be lower. But my guess is that by the time we are able to economically ( $$/environmental) produce H2, that batteries will have improved enough that electric cars (fed directly by the same low $$/environmental cost electricity) will be the way to travel. Then, what's the point in making hydrogen? It would be hard to pick a more difficult-to-store material. Few other things both leak through steel containers, and damage them in the process.

Actually, not just the same, but much greater protection is required for handling H2, as compared to gasoline. Spill liquid hydrogen on your hand, and you might lose the use of the hand. Use it as a gas, and you have the hazards of very high pressures (in addition to flammability issues you'd have with gasoline).

I've read your clear analysis with great interest and, maybe admiration.

H2 over gasoline? Very problematic. Middle East needs to be removed from the map as a crude oil source. As well as Russia. And maybe Canada.

So what is (hidden?) goal of US Gov's Hydrogen project?

So what is (hidden?) goal of US Gov's Hydrogen project?

Very good question. This is where I start to sound like a conspiracy theorist. I think that the H2 economy hype is a deliberate distraction from the many near-term viable ideas for conserving energy and developing alternatives to petroleum. An administration that manipulates the tax code to make it easier to buy a Hummer cannot possibly be taken seriously as a force for energy efficiency.

The very fact that the US uses twice as much energy per capita as any other developed country (many of which have very high standards of living) suggests that we could cut our consumption in half, and continue to live very comfortable lives. Wouldn't it make sense to start there -- particularly since by so doing, we would reduce greenhouse emissions by about half, in addition to saving resources, reducing reliance on foreign oil, reducing the likelihood of war, etc. There are real things we can do right now to make real changes. The H2 hype seems like smoke and mirrors to obscure any focus on real change.

Suppose the US government said this: You are free to buy any vehicle, just as you always have been. However, vehicles that get lower MPG ratings than the Toyota Prius will be heavily taxed: $5,000 for vehicles under 40 MPG, $10,000 for those under 30 mpg, $15,000 for those under 20 mpg, and $30,000 for those under 15 mpg. We'd quickly have lots of fuel efficient cars on the road, and manufacturers would be cranking out loads of new models. The unhappy campers? The petroleum companies.

...deliberate distraction from the many near-term viable ideas...

Spin Tactics: can it be considered a conspiracy, or is it just a legitimate distortion of truth, for the good and beneficial cause of confusing both our supporters and our opposition, into assuming we strive to make a real effort?

...manufacturers would be cranking out loads of new models...

Before milking the beaten cow to death? Are you insane? What of all the old models, Wait!!!, let's sell those to developing countries

Are you insane? What of all the old models, Wait!!!, let's sell those to developing countries

I like the way you think! Iraq should need lots of cars as they rebuild. If, after that effort, we still have a lot of old stock, we can always start an "economic stimulus program" with Iran (modeled after the ESP we've provided for Iraq).

...modeled after the ESP we've provided for Iraq...

ESP that is, hopefully not EMP

They keep destroying the ones they have, so a good cheep replacement supply would be a good way to achieve several aims.

"Middle East needs to be removed from the map as a crude oil source. As well as Russia. And maybe Canada."

Eh?

Actually, crude oil needs to be reduced from the energy mix as a fuel source. No-one can change the location of the crude oil sources, though many have tried to change national boundaries...

H₂ does not appear in crude form on this planet, partly because it is so reactive and partly because its velocity at everyday temperatures exceeds the planet's escape velocity. H₂ can therefore only be an energy carrier, like electricity. The attraction of these carriers is that one can make them from dilute energy sources, like incoming solar radiation.

Solar radiation is the planet's energy income. Combustion of stored fossil fuels is akin to selling the proverbial family silver in order to eat; one can only do it for as long as the family silver lasts and the greed exists...

Recently at Cal Tech. they use leniar crystals to make cold fusion, a by product was hydrogen, It still required more energy to cause a reaction than the experement produced.. And every experement I have seen is not incouraging. i am still interested in this
I have heard that a cheaper solar pannel substitue i has been developed ,Biozime solar pools. A living solar pannel. Problem there is not everyone has a bigg enought yard to add a Bio pool solar cell. but I have hope for this idea as new way to make cheap hydrogen You have to have a lot of power to make hydrogen fast enough to run a Platanum based energy cell I don't know the exzact numbers. But thats why they want the solar for day use and he platanum cell for night power This has been done at one of the Ca. Aquariums they have working system.

See Scientific American for latest developments in hydrogen storage. April edition.